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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint, so the description carries meaningful behavioral context: it defines the scope of results, the administrative-region requirement, the exclusion of count answers, and the billing model. It does not explain result limits or pagination, but the output schema and remaining constraints partially cover that.

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, front-loaded with purpose and scope, and includes only useful supplements: coverage types, negative behavior, examples, and pricing. No filler or redundancy is present.

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 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and only openWorldHint in annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers scope, exclusions, typical inputs, region constraints, and billing semantics, leaving no major ambiguity for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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 baseline applies. The description reinforces parameter intent with examples and clarifies that input_text must describe a single-region public-facility distribution query, but it does not add substantial semantic details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('查询') on a specific resource ('公共与政务 POI 明细列表') scoped by administrative region. It also differentiates itself from sibling POI tools by enumerating coverage (政府机关、派出所、社会团体、公共厕所) and explicitly excluding count queries.

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 clear when-to-use guidance ('基于明确的市级或区县级行政区名称'), typical query examples, and an explicit when-not-to-use instruction ('不回答这类设施的数量统计') with an alternative tool class ('请用兴趣点数量指标'). This is strong usage guidance.

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