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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pagination, filter dimensions, and a non-obvious permission-dependent behavior: '高权限套餐可查看未披露水下事件标识'. It does not explicitly state read-only, but the 'search' prefix and '查询' imply it. This is good but not exhaustive.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds filter dimensions, a use case, and a permission nuance without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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 an 11-parameter tool with zero parameter descriptions, the description covers the primary search dimensions and a key permission trait, but falls short of fully explaining several parameters (e.g., fields, company_tag_match_mode). An output schema exists, so return values don't need detailing, but the parameter gap keeps completeness at a moderate level.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps several key parameters: '人物ID或人物姓名' to person_id/person_keyword, '被投公司标签' to company_tag_ids, '行业' to scope-related params, '轮次' to round_ids, '分页' to cursor/page_size, and '水下事件' to is_underwater. However, fields, company_tag_match_mode, and sub_scope_ids are left unexplained, leaving gaps.

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 opens with '按人物ID或人物姓名分页查询人物投资案例', clearly naming the resource (人物投资案例) and the action (分页查询). It further distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the use case of '某位投资人个人参与投资过哪些公司', differentiating it from company-level or general investor case searches.

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 phrase '适合回答某位投资人个人参与投资过哪些公司' provides a concrete, actionable use case. It gives clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, making it a 4 rather than a 5.

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