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

With only openWorldHint=true in annotations, the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It discloses the query scope, covered POI types, the exclusion of count statistics, and adds a detailed pricing model (per region × POI type, not per row). It does not discuss output format or edge cases, but an output schema exists and the tool is clearly a read-style list query.

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 core description is compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, scope, coverage, exclusions, and typical usage. The additional pricing block is useful, though it adds length; overall the structure is clear and each part serves a practical purpose.

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 moderate complexity, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers selection context, in-scope POI categories, non-goals, and billing behavior. It could be improved by naming sibling tools for alternative POI categories or count queries, but the provided information is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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%, with each parameter (version, gov_name, poi_type, input_text) already documented in the schema. The description adds a few examples of typical questions and reiterates the single-region requirement, but it does not materially enhance parameter 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('查询') and resource ('金融商务与住宅 POI 明细列表') and clearly defines the administrative scope. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling POI data tools by listing covered categories (banks, office buildings, industrial parks, residential communities) and explicitly excluding count/statistics queries.

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 usage context: when a user asks about finance/business/residential POI lists within a single city or district, and gives typical question patterns. It also states a when-not case (do not answer count statistics; use POI count indicators instead), though it does not name specific alternative sibling tools explicitly.

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