enterprise_get_enterprise_invest_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only describes the query parameters and does not mention any side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The agent cannot assess safety or impact.

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 appropriately sized for a simple query tool: a one-line purpose followed by parameter list. It front-loads the purpose. However, the parameter list could be more structured (e.g., using a table) to improve scannability, but it is not overly verbose.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the input semantics. All parameters are explained. Since there is no output schema, the agent can infer that the return value is a list of investment info entries. The description is sufficient for a basic query tool.

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?

The schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'matchKeyword' as accepting multiple identifier types and lists allowed values for 'keywordType' (e.g., 'name', 'regNumber'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though the explanations are informal and not structured as a spec.

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: '查询企业对外投资信息' (query enterprise external investment information). It specifies a verb and a resource, but does not differentiate from sibling enterprise tools like 'enterprise_get_enterprise_base_info' or 'enterprise_get_enterprise_branch_info', leaving ambiguity about what specific investment details are returned.

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 lists parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or any context for invocation. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and sibling tools.

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