Chinaready China Market-Entry Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent=false, openWorld=false and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: replies come back in English, source articles are attached as citations, and the tool degrades gracefully to a contact suggestion when no page matches confidently. It does not mention latency or rate limits, but for a read-only Q&A endpoint this is solid disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior (grounded answer + citations), followed by the language constraint and the fallback case. Each sentence contributes distinct information with no repetition of the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description does its job of describing the return shape (answer plus attached source articles) and the no-match fallback. Combined with rich annotations and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the sibling routing versus `search` is left unexplained.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a concrete example question, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds only the implicit expectation that the query is a natural-language question, which is close to baseline for a fully documented single parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: a grounded natural-language answer generated over the chinaready.co corpus, with citations. It clearly reads as a RAG-style question-answering tool rather than a raw retrieval tool. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling `search`, so an agent must infer the split between 'ask a question' and 'run a keyword search'.

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?

Usage is only implied: the presence of a 'query' parameter framed as a question and the retrieval+generation framing suggest this is for natural-language questions rather than browsing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer `ask` over `search` or `get_article`, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds real value on top: the return format (clean Markdown) and the restriction to site pages only. It does not say what happens on an invalid or off-domain path, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and return type, then the input source. The example path earns its place by showing the expected shape. No filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the return format, and where the path comes from. Only error behavior for disallowed paths is left unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already states the leading/trailing slash and domain restriction. The description only adds an example path, which is mildly useful but largely restates the constraint. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (fetch) plus resource (a chinaready.co page) and output format (clean Markdown), with the scope qualifier 'site pages only' that separates it from the search/list_topics siblings. An agent can tell immediately what it gets back.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use paths returned by search/list_topics, which tells the agent this is the follow-up step after discovery. No when-not guidance (e.g. what to do for non-site URLs) but the workflow context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add operational context. It does add real value by disclosing the shape of each entry (topic + example queries + hub page paths), but says nothing about result size, caching, or freshness of the topic list.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs the useful return-shape detail without any filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and it does describe what each item contains (example queries, hub page paths). For a zero-param, read-only listing tool this is nearly complete; only result volume/pagination behavior is left unstated.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing to document — the baseline for a no-arg tool. The description correctly signals a parameterless enumeration by framing this as a full listing of covered topics.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (topics covered by the chinaready.co corpus) and even names the payload contents (example queries, hub page paths). It is distinguishable from get_article (fetch one) and search (find by query), though it never explicitly says so.

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?

Usage is implied — a discovery/catalog tool that would naturally precede 'search' — but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or alternative is stated. Nothing is misleading, but the agent must infer the routing.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the hybrid retrieval method (semantic + keyword), the return shape (ranked excerpts), and that source headers carry absolute URLs for citation. It does not cover result count behavior or ranking caveats, but the additions are substantive and consistent with openWorldHint=false.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the retrieval method and corpus, then adds the return/citation contract. No filler, no repetition of the title or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on describing return values (ranked excerpts with absolute URLs). Combined with 100% schema coverage on both parameters, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret the tool; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 only two simple parameters (query, limit), so the schema already fully documents them including examples and the default/max. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given full coverage — baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb (semantic + keyword search) and the precise corpus searched (chinaready.co guides, services, FAQ), which is more specific than a generic 'search'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings get_article or list_topics, so an agent must infer that this is the discovery tool rather than the retrieval/enumeration tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'ranked excerpts' and citable URLs suggests this is for discovery, with get_article presumably fetching full content. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer list_topics, and no exclusions.

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