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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint, so the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses scope boundaries, included indicator types, and exclusions, which helps the agent understand what the query will and will not cover. It does not mention pagination or data freshness, but an output schema exists to define return shape.

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 well-structured with purpose, exclusions, indicator list, and examples. There is minor redundancy between the opening purpose sentence and the repeated '涉及指标/类型' list, but overall every section 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?

For a two-parameter tool backed by an output schema, this description is complete enough for selection and invocation. It covers when to use it, when not to use it, what indicators are included, what is excluded, and gives representative questions, with pricing also provided.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with examples, giving 100% coverage. The description adds value by providing concrete composite queries, such as '中国比亚迪股份有限公司在东亚...', which demonstrate how country_name and company_name should be combined.

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 operation: querying company-level policy-compliance periodic changes for East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Europe. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it is not for domestic policy compliance and not for assessing external-trade policy impacts on operations.

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?

Positive usage is explicit ('用于查询东亚、东南亚、欧洲等地合规流程与标准'), and negative usage is also explicit ('不用于国内政策合规，也不用于外贸政策对企业经营冲击判断', plus exclusion of bulk park/chain screening). Typical question patterns reinforce exactly when to invoke this tool.

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