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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, with no readOnly or destructive hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope (macro indicators, not POI counts) and covers key behaviors like exclusions and typical queries, but does not detail response format or pagination. Since it is a query tool, this is sufficient, though not exhaustive.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by explicit exclusions and examples. Every sentence adds value, and the pricing JSON is structured separately, not cluttering the prose. 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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive parameter descriptions (100% coverage), the description is complete: it clearly defines the tool's domain, provides typical query examples, and explicitly differentiates from alternatives. It fully covers the needed context for an agent to decide and invoke 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% (all three parameters are described in the input schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides; it only restates the query intent (e.g., '幼儿园医疗等配套完备度指标') which is already covered in the input_text description.

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 verb and resource: '查询地区城市设施与公共服务配套宏观指标' (query macro indicators of urban facilities and public service supporting). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by stating it is not POI counts (use 兴趣点数量) nor store details (use poi_data_*), which distinguishes it from other gov_data_* and poi_data_* tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance with alternatives: '不是超市/医院等 POI 个数（个数请用兴趣点数量指标）也不是门店明细（请用 poi_data_*）'. Also includes typical question examples ('某区幼儿园配置完备度、公共设施配套较好的城市') to illustrate usage context, effectively directing an agent to the correct tool.

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