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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: visibility rules based on ownership and the found=false signal when no record exists. It could say more about auth requirements for the owner path but is solid.

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-loads the core action, then brackets usage and resource in clearly delimited sections; minimal waste. The resource URI line is mildly extraneous but not distracting.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the visibility semantics and the not-found behavior ('查不到返回 found=false'), which compensates for the absent output schema. Enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the slug parameter's format is fully documented there, so the description adds little beyond restating '按 slug'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (获取/get) and resource (一人公司主页), and the visibility scoping (public view → only PUBLISHED; owner → any state) clearly distinguishes it from get_my_company and list_companies. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the 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?

The 【何时用】section gives clear context ('用户想看某家一人公司在做什么'), which anchors the use case well. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. get_my_company for one's own company), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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