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

The description discloses the scope boundary that this tool returns a count, not a list of companies. The annotation only provides openWorldHint=true, so the description adds useful context about what is excluded, though it does not cover edge-case behavior such as invalid park names or default year handling.

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 organized with typical questions, included metrics, and exclusions. The pricing block adds irrelevant detail for tool selection/output understanding, keeping it from being a perfect 5.

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 count tool with one required parameter and an available output schema, the description provides enough contextual scope and examples. It does not cover all edge-case behaviors or explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the schema and simple surface area make it reasonably complete.

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%, so park_name and year are already well-documented. The description adds example query phrasing and example park names, but it does not need to add significant additional parameter semantics 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 the function: '基于具体园区名称失信人企业数量查询' (query discredited-company count by specific park name). It also distinguishes from sibling list tools by explicitly saying '不包含：企业名单明细'.

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, typical queries, and explicit exclusions such as other company categories and company list details. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool like 'park_discredited_company_list', but the exclusion strongly implies it.

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