query_enterprise_risk

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return fields (risk level, penalty records, etc.) and a free tier limit (30 requests/day), giving good insight into behavior beyond the basic query.

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 sentences: purpose and outputs, use cases, limit. No wasted words, front-loaded with core functionality. Ideal structure.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description explains both what it checks and what it returns (risk level, records, counts, score). The free tier limit is also mentioned, making it complete for operation.

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 covers 100% of parameters (enterprise_name, credit_code) with descriptions. The description adds a Chinese translation hint but does not enrich semantics beyond what schema provides, so baseline 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 states it checks enterprise risk status and lists specific risk types (blacklist, penalties, etc.), clearly distinguishing from siblings like face_compare or ocr_recognize. It also includes use cases, making purpose unambiguous.

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 lists use cases (credit assessment, risk management, due diligence) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use. Among siblings, verify_enterprise might be more appropriate for basic verification, but no comparison is provided.

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