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

The description does not mention any side effects, permissions, or read-only nature. While it is likely a safe query tool, the lack of explicit behavioral transparency means the description does not fully inform the agent about potential impacts. Annotations provide only openWorldHint, so the description carries the burden and does not fully address it.

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 efficient, but it repeats the indicator list and typical queries, making it slightly redundant. Still, it is not overly verbose and covers essential information clearly.

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 no output schema, the description sets expectations by listing the indicators covered (e.g., affected R&D projects, team distribution). It does not mention output format, but the listed indicators give sufficient context for an agent to infer the nature of results.

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?

Both parameters are described with examples in the schema, and the description reinforces their meaning by using them in typical queries. It adds context about the tool's scope but does not significantly go beyond the schema's own examples.

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 that the tool queries periodic changes in international cooperation for a specific enterprise, covering R&D cooperation, multinational teams, and cooperation countries. It explicitly distinguishes itself from related tools by noting it is not for import/export compliance or foreign policy impact.

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 explicit usage scenarios (when to use for international cooperation metrics) and clear exclusions (not for trade compliance or policy impact). Typical queries are given, making the intended use unambiguous.

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