p0060007_verify_business_two_elements

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

The description indicates the tool performs a verification (matching check), which is a read-only operation. No annotations are provided, but the description does not contradict any potential annotations. It does not detail side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, but for a simple verification tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's function. Every word is essential and there is no redundant information.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It fails to mention prerequisites or error scenarios, but it covers the core purpose and inputs adequately for most use cases.

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%, and the description only mentions the parameters in a general sense ('企业名称' and '统一社会信用代码/企业注册号'). It does not provide format, constraints, or examples, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 that the tool verifies two elements of business (name and registration number). It uses specific verbs and resources, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'p0060008_verify_business_three_elements' by specifying 'two elements'.

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?

The description implies usage for verifying business name and registration number matching, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like the three-element verification or query profiles. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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