China Visa & Regulation Data

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the full return payload, the dataset freshness date (2026-10-18), that no key is required, and a concrete rate limit of 50 free-tool calls per IP per day. The cost, freshness and quota disclosures are exactly the operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

It is front-loaded with the usage trigger, then inputs and outputs, then caveats and cost – a sensible order. The bilingual disclaimer is duplicated in Chinese and English, which is repetition rather than wasted meaning, keeping it just below a 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the specific exemption routes covered, plus validity dates and source links. For a single-parameter read-only lookup, nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it correctly 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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents that nationality is an English country name with examples. The description's "Inputs: nationality (English country name, e.g. Germany)" merely restates it, adding no format, normalization or fallback guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource – determining whether a passport holder can enter mainland China visa-free and for how long – which is immediately actionable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling sample_eligibility, whose name suggests overlapping purpose, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Use when someone asks whether a passport holder can enter mainland China without a visa, and for how long" gives a clear trigger condition. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer latest_regulation_changes), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral facts: the tool is free, requires no API key, and is rate-limited to 50 free-tool calls per IP per day in total. Auth and rate-limit disclosures are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

It is front-loaded (trigger first), then inputs, outputs, and cost in tight sequence. Slightly dense — the free-limit detail appears both in the trigger clause and the trailing cost sentence — but every line carries actionable information.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing the shape of the returned JSON. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool 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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly states 'Inputs: none,' which matches the empty schema and prevents the agent from guessing at required args.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('get pricing' / cost and how to buy) and enumerates exactly what is returned: free-tool limit, credit packs, Stripe Payment Links, USDC-on-Base steps, and per-tool cost. No sibling (eligibility, regulation changes, capability list) overlaps with pricing, so the agent can distinguish it instantly.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use when the user asks about cost, hits the free limit, or needs more calls.' That is strong when-to-use guidance, though it names no exclusions or alternative tools — which is acceptable since no sibling covers pricing.

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), it provides rich operational context: specific data limits (50 calls/day), cost (free, no key), output structure (JSON list of specific fields), and the nature of the scope (English releases only).

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 appropriately sized for the complexity of the operation. It front-loads the core function before listing the detailed constraints and operational logistics.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description is highly complete by listing the specific contents of the returned JSON list (date, source, title, summary, tags, link). It also includes critical operational constraints like rate limits.

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?

While schema coverage is 67%, the description adds significant semantic value. It clarifies the allowed range for 'limit' (1-20), and gives examples/types for 'topic' and specifies the format for 'since' (YYYY-MM-DD).

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 identifies the resource (official Chinese regulations and policy releases) and the core function (brief a foreign business), making it distinct from the neighboring tools like check_visa_free_eligibility.

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?

It provides strong usage boundaries by specifying the scope of data sources (State Council, MOFCOM) and explicitly states what the tool does *not* do—it offers a disclaimer against providing visa agency or intermediary services.

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 only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations can't: it is free, requires no API key, and enforces a rate limit of 50 free-tool calls per IP per day. That rate-limit and auth disclosure is exactly the kind of context the rubric credits; it stops short of richer detail (e.g., what happens when the limit is hit).

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative use-first guidance, then Inputs, Output, and Cost in a compact labeled sequence. Every sentence carries information and nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries that burden and does so adequately, spelling out the JSON fields returned (tool, cost, data coverage, dataset dates, auth method) plus cost/rate-limit terms. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with "Inputs: none," leaving no ambiguity that the tool takes no arguments.

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+resource and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: each tool, its cost, data coverage, dataset dates and auth method. That scope is clearly distinct from the sibling action tools (check_visa_free_eligibility, get_pricing, latest_regulation_changes, sample_eligibility).

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?

"Use first to see what this server covers and which tools are free" gives explicit ordering guidance and a clear reason to call this before exploring siblings. It does not name any when-not condition or contrast against a specific alternative, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses cost (free), auth (no key), a concrete rate limit (50 calls per IP per day across free tools), and precisely what the response contains. It also surfaces the no-agency/intermediary policy caveat, which shapes how results should be presented.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then inputs, output, alternative, compliance note, and cost/limits — logical order with strong signal density. The bilingual legal disclaimer is boilerplate that occupies meaningful space, the only real bloat.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (visa-free status for ordinary passports, max days, route names, one source link). Combined with limits, defaults, and the sibling handoff, nothing material is missing for correct 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% and the schema already says the parameter is an English country name defaulting to 'Germany'. The description restates the same facts (English country name, default Germany) without adding format edge cases or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource — preview the shape and quality of eligibility data — and immediately frames itself as a sample rather than the full lookup. The contrast with check_visa_free_eligibility is made explicit, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use (preview/sample) and an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it: 'For full routes, conditions, dates and all sources use check_visa_free_eligibility.' That is exactly the routing information an agent needs.

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