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

Annotations only include openWorldHint=true, with no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. The description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions it queries '周期变化' (periodic changes) and lists supported attributes, but does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation or describe other behavioral traits like output format or pagination. Since it's a query tool, the absence of explicit read-only declaration is a minor gap, but the description does provide substantial scope context.

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 longer than average, but it is well-structured: it front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence, then lists included indicators, exclusions, and typical questions. Each section earns its place, though it could be slightly more concise by trimming redundant enumeration.

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 complexity (many sibling enterprise_change_* tools) and that it has an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the exact attributes it covers, exclusions, and usage examples. The main missing piece is a clearer explanation of '周期变化' and what the returned data looks like, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 100% – both parameters have clear descriptions ('企业名称' and '国家名称' with examples). The description does not add extra parameter-specific semantics beyond usage examples, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 queries periodic changes in basic enterprise attributes like four-upper small-micro, state/private ownership, listed/bond, and financial institution types. It uses specific verbs and resource (query by company name) and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly listing what it does NOT cover (e.g., business status, registered capital, financing rounds).

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 exclusions: '不用于经营状态、注册资本、融资轮次等企业概况字段' and '不包含：非本分类指标；按园区/产业链批量筛企业名单'. It also gives typical example questions, helping the agent decide when to invoke. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, though the exclusions clarify the boundary.

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