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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool's scope and exclusions, and includes pricing information (which is helpful). However, it does not discuss data freshness, pagination, error handling, or the implications of openWorldHint (e.g., data may be incomplete). The presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return format details, but behavioral traits are not fully disclosed.

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 concise: a clear purpose sentence, coverage list, exclusions, and examples, followed by a separate pricing block. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it could benefit from bullet points for readability. No redundant or filler content.

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 3 parameters, a rich output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, exclusions, and typical queries. It does not need to explain return values due to the output schema. It could mention version handling caveats, but the schema already notes version_mismatch. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use correctly.

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% for all 3 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds typical usage examples but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It implicitly ties input_text to the examples, but versions and gov_names are only described in 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 the tool queries regional land transaction and land price macro indicators, specifies covered indicators (industrial/commercial/residential land area, cases, total price, unit price), and explicitly excludes unrelated data (house price details, enterprise quantities). This distinguishes it from sibling gov_data_* tools that focus on other domains.

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 typical query examples ('某区工业用地成交单价', '土地成交面积TOP城市') and explicitly lists exclusions (house price detail listings, enterprise quantity), which helps an agent know when not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those excluded scenarios, leaving some ambiguity.

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