research_company

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and it does disclose a key behavior: real retrieval is optional (可选启用真实检索), implying the default is a plan without live search. It also implies the output includes red-flag monitoring and missing-information reporting, but it does not describe side effects, whether it mutates anything, or what happens when real retrieval is enabled.

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 short and front-loads the plan category, but it compresses six concepts (entity anchors, registries, research questions, red flags, missing info, optional retrieval) into a dense, jargon-heavy phrase. It earns its place partly because of the optional-retrieval detail, yet readability suffers.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain inputs, output format, and mode behavior. It provides a component list and mentions optional real retrieval, but omits parameter semantics, when to enable retrieval, and what a returned plan looks like, leaving an agent to select and invoke it with significant uncertainty.

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 does not explain any of the three parameters: name, extra, or country. An agent gets no guidance on what extra should contain, what country format is expected, or how these map to the entity-anchoring/registry/research-question components. The required name is self-evident but the other fields are opaque.

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 the output is a 'credit investigation plan' (资信背调计划) for a company and lists its components, so an agent can infer it produces a structured research/planning artifact rather than directly researching. However, it never states an explicit verb/action ('generates', 'returns', 'searches'), and the plan's relationship to siblings such as check_redflags or web_search is not clarified.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions against sibling tools. The phrase 'optionally enable real retrieval' hints that this tool can be a planning-only mode, but the description does not say when to prefer it over web_search or check_redflags, nor when real retrieval should be toggled.

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