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

Annotations only include openWorldHint; the description adds useful boundary information (returns a list, does not return just counts, does not cover other categories). However, it does not disclose behavior such as pagination, list size limits, response format expectations, or permission/rate-limit constraints; the output schema may cover some of this.

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 compact and front-loaded, with purpose, exclusions, and sample queries in a scannable structure. The embedded Pricing JSON block is extraneous to tool selection and invocation, slightly reducing clarity.

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 simple two-parameter list query with an output schema and 100% parameter documentation, the description is largely complete. It clearly maps to its domain and typical user questions, though it could be stronger by explicitly naming count-only or category-specific sibling alternatives.

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 park_name and year already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds example park names and the year context, but it does not materially deepen semantic understanding 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?

Description states a specific action and resource: querying an enterprise list by a specific park name (基于具体园区名称企业列表查询). It clearly differentiates from count-only siblings via '仅返回数量不返回名单' and from category-specific list tools via '不包含：其他企业分类的统计'. Example queries reinforce the intended use.

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 clear context and typical query phrasings, and explicitly excludes returning only counts or other enterprise category statistics, which guides away from park_company_num and specialized park_*_company_list tools. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly or state when not to use it beyond those exclusions.

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