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

Beyond the sparse annotations (openWorldHint only), the description discloses that queries are billed per data unit (region × POI type) and clarifies the scope (does not answer counts). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but as a query tool, the primary side effects (credit cost) are transparently communicated. This adds value over the 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 concise and well-structured, with clear statements about purpose, coverage, exclusions, and examples. The inclusion of pricing details is slightly unusual but adds useful operational context. No redundancy or excessive verbosity, so it earns a high score.

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?

The description is complete for a query tool: it specifies what it returns (POI detail list), what it excludes (counts), and the required input (administrative region). It also includes pricing information, which is valuable for cost awareness. While it lacks an explicit output schema, that is not required given the description's clarity.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover each parameter's meaning (e.g., gov_name, poi_type, input_text) with good detail. The description reinforces this by explaining the input_text fallback and giving example uses, but it does not introduce entirely new semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the added value is moderate but helpful.

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 the tool queries POI details for hotels and scenic spots within a specified administrative region, lists coverage types (e.g., star-rated hotels, parks, zoos), and explicitly notes it does not handle quantity statistics. It also provides typical query examples, making its purpose highly specific and distinct from sibling POI tools like poi_data_dining or poi_data_transport.

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 gives practical usage context with example questions ('某区五星级宾馆分布') and clarifies that count queries are out of scope, directing users to another metric. It implies when to use this tool (for detailed lists, not counts) but does not explicitly name alternative tools. Overall, it provides good, actionable guidance.

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