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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real scope information beyond that: only published company pages are returned and results are newest-first. It stops short of describing pagination or result shape, so not a 5.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences that put scope and ordering first and the routing hint last. Minor redundancy between '可选 q 关键词命中名称/定位' and the later '按关键词找公司' keeps it from a 5.

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 two-param, zero-required read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, filtering intent and the follow-up tool. Nothing essential is missing, though a note on what a company entry contains would make it fully self-sufficient.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented including the default and 50 max on limit. The description restates that q matches name/positioning and that omitting it yields the latest list, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema; 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 and resource ('列出已发布的一人公司主页') plus the ordering ('最新优先'), and explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_company used for drill-down. An agent can distinguish it from list_creators or discover_organizations 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use triggers ('浏览有哪些一人公司' or '按关键词找公司') and names the alternative for the deeper path ('drill-down 用 get_company'). Both the selection condition and the hand-off are explicit.

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