Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide only openWorldHint: true, which is not contradicted. The description adds context about the indicator scope and exclusions, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pricing or response format beyond the included pricing info. However, it does mention pricing explicitly in the description, which is beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core function. It includes example queries and exclusions, which are useful. The pricing information is embedded but could be considered extra; overall, it is efficient without being verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that there is an output schema and full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete for a count query tool. It specifies the input (park name, optional year) and the scope (specific indicator), and provides an output schema. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning that 'park_name' is mandatory, but that is evident from the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description reiterates 'park_name' examples but adds little new meaning beyond the schema. The optional 'year' parameter is not mentioned in the description, but its schema description is clear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool queries the count of specialized and innovative ('专精特新') enterprises based on a specific park name. It explicitly lists the indicator type ('专精特新企业数量') and excludes other classifications and lists, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'park_specialized_company_list'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for park-specific queries by providing typical question examples ('中关村软件园专精特新企业有多少'). It explicitly states what is not included (other classifications and detailed lists), but does not contrast with the other 'park_*_company_num' tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.