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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description only needs to add behavioral context, and it does add the content scope. It says nothing about ordering, freshness window, or how many results come back by default beyond what the schema states, so the addition is modest.

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 compact sentences, with the resource and content scope front-loaded before the filter note. No filler, though the filter sentence adds little beyond the schema.

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 three fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the definition covers what it returns and how to narrow it. Missing only return ordering/paging details, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 city, parkId and limit (default 30, max 100) are already fully documented. The description's '可按城市或具体园区过滤' merely restates the two filter parameters, adding no extra meaning such as precedence when both are supplied.

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 uses a clear verb+resource ('园区新闻 feed') and enriches it with the kind of content returned (开园/招商/补贴变化等时效信息), so an agent understands what the tool surfaces. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as list_city_policies or list_parks, which keeps it 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?

Usage is only implied: '时效信息' hints this is the feed for time-sensitive park developments rather than static policy reference, but no when-to-use statement or named alternative (e.g. list_city_policies) is given. An agent can guess the context but is not routed explicitly.

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