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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. It only implies a paginated query but lacks explicit behavioral warnings.

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 a single block but effectively front-loads the key conditions and purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, though structured formatting could improve readability.

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 tool with 17 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and some filter hints. However, it lacks details on pagination, field selection, and tag match mode. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 0%. The description explains some parameters (keyword, tag, location, born year, etc.) but many are left unexplained (cities, provinces, cursor, page_size, tag_match_mode, etc.). It adds value for a subset but insufficiently for 17 parameters.

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 specifies a clear verb ('search') and resource ('companies') with multiple filter criteria. It distinguishes from sibling 'count_companies' by explicitly stating to use that tool when only a count is needed.

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 states when to use this tool ('回答有哪些公司、按名称找公司和补充项目背景') and when not to use it ('如用户只问总数、多少家、数量，优先使用 count_companies'). This provides explicit guidance.

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