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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (2026年度, official document numbers, effective dates), but says nothing about behavior when an unsupported province is supplied, data freshness, or format of failure.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no filler. Some enumeration of return fields is arguably redundant against the existing output schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with a full output schema and clear annotations, the definition supplies enough scope (31 provinces, 2026, the specific data points) to call it correctly. It could note coverage limits (mainland provinces only, 2026 data only) but is otherwise adequate.

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% and the single province parameter is already documented with example names, pinyin, and two-digit administrative codes. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb (查询) and resource (中国31省市2026年度社保缴费基数官方政策), and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it is asking for. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the province-level policy lookup is clearly separate from the calculate_* and get_city_social_fund_limits tools.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling get_city_social_fund_limits or the calculate_* tools as alternatives. The intended use (fetching provincial base limits or official policy details) is only inferred from the enumerated content.

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