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.