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

无 annotations，代理需依赖描述了解行为。描述列出了返回字段（服务名称、简介、特点、报价说明与状态），有助理解输出。但未说明是否需要认证、是否有频率限制、是否为只读操作等行为特征，对无注解的工具而言披露仍不完整。

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?

单段描述，信息前置（先说明查询内容与站点），随后列出服务类型、返回字段与使用场景。内容紧凑，无冗余句子，但示例问法略显堆砌。

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?

无输出 schema，但描述已列出返回字段，基本覆盖代理所需信息。无注解情况下，对认证/限流等行为描述不足是唯一缺口，整体对该工具复杂度而言较为完整。

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 描述覆盖率 100%，三个参数（cat、limit、keyword）均已在 schema 中说明默认值与取值范围。描述仅提及服务分类和关键词示例，未提供超出 schema 的额外语义，符合覆盖率高的基线水平。

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?

明确说明了动词+资源：查询 hndcw.com 的现场执行与社会调查服务目录，并列出具体服务类型（神秘顾客、面访、焦点小组等）。目的清晰，但未与同类工具区分（占位符中无同类工具），且未突出与其他查询服务目录工具的区别。

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?

给出了使用场景示例（如'找神秘顾客执行''面访多少钱''座谈会服务有哪些'），能帮助代理判断何时调用。但未说明何时不应调用此工具，也未提及其他替代方案或前提条件。

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