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

The description adds scope clarifications (what is included/excluded) and indicates the tool returns periodic changes, but it does not disclose any detailed behavioral aspects such as rate limits, pagination, or what happens when data is unavailable. With only openWorldHint:true as an annotation, the description could have provided more context about output behavior, but it does offer some useful scope constraints.

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 reasonably concise but includes multiple sections (purpose, exclusions, indicators, typical queries) that add value. It is structured with bullet-point-like separators, making it easy to scan. The length is justified by the need to clarify scope and provide examples, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing essential 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main context: what it does, what regions it covers, what it excludes, and typical usage patterns. It could be more explicit about the meaning of 'periodic changes' and whether it works for any country or only those directly in the mentioned regions, but overall it provides sufficient information for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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?

Although the schema already documents both parameters with examples (company_name and country_name), the description adds semantic richness by explaining how country_name relates to the geographical regions (East Asia, Southeast Asia, Europe) and provides realistic query examples. This goes beyond the schema's basic type examples, helping the agent understand parameter usage in context.

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 policy compliance changes by company name, with specific focus on East Asia, Southeast Asia, Europe, and other regions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from domestic policy compliance and foreign trade policy impact tools, and provides typical query examples, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when NOT to use the tool (not for domestic policy compliance, not for foreign trade policy impact) and what it does not include (non-category indicators, batch screening by park/industry chain). It provides typical query formats, giving clear guidance on appropriate usage versus alternatives.

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