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

The description includes behavioral details beyond the openWorldHint annotation: it mentions that results are based on business-related data items, and includes pricing information (credits per returned row). It does not mention side effects or permissions, but as a search tool, its non-destructive nature is implied. The inclusion of pricing and return type adds transparency, though it does not cover all potential behaviors (e.g., rate limits).

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 well-structured and concise given the tool's complexity. It follows a logical flow: purpose, filter categories, results, exclusions, and examples, followed by pricing. There is no redundant information, and each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's usage and scope. The length is justified by the need to explain multi-part filters and provide disambiguation.

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?

The description is comprehensive for a search tool. It covers the primary purpose, filter types, result type, exclusions, and typical usage examples. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to explain return values. The inclusion of pricing and the explicit mention of alternatives (gov_data_enterprise_scale/change) makes it self-contained for an agent to decide when to invoke this 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 already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two filter categories (administrative region vs. business conditions), clarifying that business conditions are required, and providing examples of parameter combinations. It also elaborates on the capital_wan parameter's dual form (number or object) with a concrete example, enhancing comprehension 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 that the tool queries companies satisfying filter conditions, returning lists, counts, or data items. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it is not for querying by specific company name or for region total counts, which are handled by gov_data_enterprise_scale/change. This provides clear purpose and differentiation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: it is for general company searches with complex filters, and explicitly excludes cases for specific-name queries or region total counts, pointing to alternative tools. It also gives typical query examples (e.g., '成都市注册资金5000万以上的企业') that illustrate appropriate usage, making the conditions for use very clear.

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