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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds content boundaries (no UGC reviews/check-ins) and a found=false edge-case behavior, which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but these are terse single clauses with no return-format or auth detail.

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?

Content scope is front-loaded before the exclusion and workflow notes, and delimiter use (；【组合链】) keeps it scannable. It is dense but each clause carries distinct information, with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by listing what fields are returned and what is excluded, plus the workflow position and failure routing. For a single-parameter read tool with complete annotations, this is nearly everything an agent needs.

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% for the single id parameter, which the schema documents as a cuid, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing further about the id (format, where to obtain it), so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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+resource and enumerates the returned content categories (address, coordinates, operator, policy, member sources, news), which is more than a bare 'get details'. It also carves out what it is not (no UGC reviews/check-ins), helping separate it from review/feed siblings. It does not explicitly name the nearest sibling list_parks for contrast, 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?

Gives an explicit workflow chain (list_parks -> detail -> get_company), which tells the agent when in a sequence to call it. It also routes the agent on failure: found=false means switch to city policy search. This is clear context and routing, though framed as a chain rather than an explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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