p0050007_p0050008_query_public_opinion_info

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

The description mentions a two-step orchestration but does not explain how the tool handles the process (e.g., how entryId is obtained, what happens if multiple results, error handling). It references an 'entryId' parameter that is not present in the input schema, causing confusion. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but falls short.

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 very short (two sentences), which is concise, but it sacrifices essential information. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but lacks parameter details and usage guidance. It could be considered under-specified rather than properly concise.

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?

Despite the tool having 10 parameters and an output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the orchestration logic, date format, pagination, or what the tool returns. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'ent_name' and 'entryId' (entryId not in schema) but does not explain the other 9 parameters like page_no, start_date, end_date, info_label, etc. No format, default behavior, or constraints are given, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 states the tool's purpose: querying enterprise public opinion information. It mentions a two-step process involving P0050007 and P0050008, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this composite tool from the individual sibling tools p0050007_query_public_opinion_list and p0050008_query_public_opinion_detail, which would help an agent choose between 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this composite tool versus using the individual sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where this is appropriate, or situations where alternatives are better. The description lacks usage context.

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