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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool covers a six-city OPC directory, and detail-level data such as subsidy breakdowns and entry conditions is intentionally delegated to get_park. No contradiction with 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 compact and well-structured: purpose statement, killer use case, and drill-down pointer. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important operational guidance is front-loaded.

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?

The schema documents all 7 optional parameters with Chinese labels and enum meanings, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description completes the picture with usage intent and the get_park drill-down. For a simple list/filter tool, nothing essential 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by teaching combinability of filters ('可叠加 city / track / 状态 / 关键词') and by highlighting the RENT_SUBSIDY enum value as the most important use case.

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 opens with '浏览 / 筛选 OPC 园区目录（六城）', giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also differentiates from the get_park drill-down sibling, so an agent can tell catalog browsing from detail lookup 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?

It explicitly presents the highest-frequency use case: benefitType=RENT_SUBSIDY to find parks with rent subsidies, and states that city / track / status / keyword can be stacked. It also gives the alternative route: get_park for subsidy details, entry conditions, and sources.

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