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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond the schema: only published homepages are returned and results are ordered newest-first. It does not discuss pagination/cursor behavior, so it is not quite 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?

Two tight sentences (plus a bracketed usage tag) front-loaded with what is listed, then when to use it. Every clause earns its place 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?

For a read-only, filtered list tool with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, and with no output schema that needs explaining, the description supplies the remaining essentials: scope, ordering, and the drill-down alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% – both q and limit are fully documented in the schema, including the default of 24 and the maximum of 50. The description only restates that q matches name/positioning, adding no syntax or matching-rule detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (列出) plus resource (已发布的一人公司主页) with scope (published only) and ordering (最新优先). It also names the drill-down sibling get_company, so the agent can separate this browse tool from the single-item fetch 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?

The 【何时用】 block gives an explicit trigger (user wants to browse what solo-company pages exist, or look up companies by keyword) and an explicit alternative for the drill-down case (get_company). Nothing is left to inference.

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