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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the server auto-normalizes loose terms (ipo/上市/并购) and that 尝鲜版/标准版 users cannot view underwater event details — a real access constraint. It stops short on other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or how pagination/cursor behaves.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core action and then explains the ambiguous filters — no filler sentences. It would read better broken into filter-by-filter bullets given the parameter count, 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a 15-parameter search tool with zero schema descriptions, the description covers only the highest-value ambiguous params plus a tier constraint; the ID-list and geography params remain unexplained, leaving gaps an agent could hit.

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% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the two genuinely ambiguous filters (event_type physical source vs event_category business classification) and is_underwater, but leaves scope_ids, sub_scope_ids, round_ids, tag_ids, provinces/cities/location, cursor, and page_size entirely to name inference.

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 and resource (分页查询事件) plus the filterable dimensions (时间、行业、标签、轮次), which distinguishes it from company/investor/person-focused siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to contrast against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied through the filter semantics (event_type vs event_category vs free-text terms), and it notes a version-tier restriction on underwater events. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance relative to siblings like get_company_funding_events or search_fa_cases, so the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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