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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and mostly covers it: login requirement, the blast radius (delisting stops public display/search, but data is retained and owner-visible), reversibility via re-publish on edit, an ownership/version-change rejection rule, and a preview/confirm safety flow. Only the preview response shape (e.g., where previewHash comes from) is left implicit.

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?

Front-loaded with the login gate and the core effect, then the workflow, then the alternative — the ordering is exactly right. It is dense and semicolon-chained, which slightly hurts scannability, but almost every clause is load-bearing.

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 4-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema, state-mutating tool, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and safely: ownership scoping, preview-first pattern, consent gating, and the delete-vs-archive boundary. The remaining gaps (what preview returns, hash validity window, recovery path) are minor.

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 only 25%, but the description explains the semantics of the three otherwise-undocumented parameters: '默认预览' (preview default), 'previewHash' (returned by preview, must be passed back), and 'consent=true' for execution with 'preview=false'. This substantially compensates for the low coverage, though it doesn't spell out format/expiry constraints.

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 names a specific verb + resource ('仅下架指定本人公司主页') and precisely scopes the effect: stop public listing/search, keep the data, owner still sees it. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_my_company ('彻底删除用 delete_my_company'), so an agent can pick the right tool without opening either schema.

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?

It states the prerequisite (【需要登录】), the required precondition (only your own company), the two-step flow ('先 get_my_company'), the default behavior ('默认预览'), and the exact confirmation sequence ('同参+previewHash、consent=true、preview=false'). The alternative (permanent deletion) is named with its condition.

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