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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful operational context: pagination at 30 records per page, gateway-based credentials, and that charges/authorization are gateway-determined. However, it is vague on what 'determined by the gateway' means in practice, and stays silent on whether it is read-only, data freshness, or failure behavior when neither identifier is supplied.

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 sentences with no filler; the core action and identifier choice are front-loaded and pagination/auth notes follow. Nothing needs trimming, though the second and third sentences could be tightened slightly.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials (what it returns, identifier inputs, pagination, billing context). It leaves an agent guessing on the all-optional identifier semantics and on the shape of the returned records, which is an unresolved gap rather than a complete definition.

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 schema already documents id, pageNo, and tyshxydm, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only the mapping that either the enterprise ID or the credit code identifies the enterprise and that page size defaults to 30, without clarifying which identifier is required or how conflicts between the two are resolved.

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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('external investment records for an enterprise'), which is a distinct data type from the sibling enterprise queries like enterprisebaseinfo, enterprisepledge, or enterpriseannualreport. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it stops 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 implied by the identifier inputs ('using its enterprise ID or unified social credit code'), so an agent can infer this is a per-enterprise lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., qcc_post_company_get_external_investments), and no statement of prerequisites.

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