p0050007_query_public_opinion_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions the ent_name parameter. It does not disclose read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or any behavioral quirks. The schema's many parameters are unaddressed.

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 concise at two sentences, but it sacrifices completeness. It front-loads the purpose but lacks structure for the many parameters.

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?

Given 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and a presumably rich output schema, the description is severely lacking. It only addresses ent_name, leaving users uninformed about other fields, filters, and result format.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only explains the ent_name parameter with an example. The other 8 parameters (page_no, end_date, etc.) are completely undocumented, adding no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 it's a query for enterprise public opinion information list and mentions the key parameter ent_name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like p0050008_query_public_opinion_detail by being a list query, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list-type siblings.

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 tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others like detail queries or info queries.

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