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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content context (news categories) but no additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, sorting, or output structure, so it adds limited value beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the resource type ('园区新闻 feed') and includes relevant examples of content categories. Every clause earns its place; there is no redundant information.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters and rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to know what the tool does and how to filter. The lack of an output schema is somewhat mitigated by the 'feed' framing, though explicit details about result ordering or fields would make it more complete.

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%, with each parameter (city, limit, parkId) already documented in the input schema. The description's mention of filtering by city or park simply restates the schema notes without adding new semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a park news feed ('园区新闻 feed') with specific content examples (开园 / 招商 / 补贴变化等时效信息), making the resource and operation clear. It is implicitly distinct from sibling list tools dealing with parks, stats, or policies, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 description provides clear context by explaining that this is for time-sensitive park news and that it can be filtered by city or specific park ('可按城市或具体园区过滤'). It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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