GoAI Moat Export Compliance

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

沒有 annotations，描述承擔行為揭露責任；它揭露了產出是「分階段」「自檢清單」，比單純工具名稱多了一點內容特徵。但未說明輸入市場如何影響結果、是否為靜態範本、是否有法律免責或資料時效性等行為特性。

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?

單句描述，動作與產物前置，無冗餘資訊，結構精煉且易於快速理解。

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?

工具本身簡單且具 output schema，描述足以說明基本功能；但在有兩個兄弟工具的情況下，缺少使用情境與替代工具的導引，也未提示任何限制，對完整選用判斷略嫌不足。

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?

input schema 已 100% 覆蓋 market 參數，包含預設值與可選值，描述本身未新增參數語意。基於高覆蓋率，維持 baseline 3。

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?

描述明確指出「生成」動作與「分階段合規自檢清單」這個產出，並限定「出口到目標市場」，語義清楚。雖然未明確與 hs_code_reference 或 market_access_requirements 做對比，但「清單產生器」與「參考/需求查詢」的性質已足以大致區分。

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?

描述暗示當使用者需要某目標市場的出口合規自檢步驟時使用此工具，但沒有明確說明與 hs_code_reference、market_access_requirements 的選用時機，也沒有排除性或替代情境。

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only lookup operation via the word '查' (lookup), but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it mention any limitations, rate limits, or error conditions. For a simple lookup tool, this is minimally sufficient but not thorough.

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 a single concise sentence in Chinese, front-loading the action and resource. It includes the relevant level of detail (6-digit) without any superfluous words. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one well-described parameter), an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), and the description covers the purpose and level of detail, the definition is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. It lacks only explicit handling of edge cases, which are minor for a lookup tool.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for the single 'keyword' parameter, including language support and examples. The tool description merely restates 'by product keyword' without adding new meaning or nuance beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 the tool's purpose: quick lookup of HS code classification by product keyword, specifying the resource (HS codes), the action (lookup), and the granularity (6-digit global harmonized level). It distinguishes itself from siblings like export_compliance_checklist and market_access_requirements, which focus on different aspects of international trade.

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 implies usage for HS code lookup but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to choose this over them. It is clear that this tool is for code classification, while the siblings cover compliance and market access, but no explicit 'use this when...' guidance is provided.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the scope (covered categories) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens for unsupported categories, or any error/limitation behavior. It lacks transparency beyond the basic query action.

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 two short paragraphs with the primary purpose in the first sentence and a category list in the second. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the category list is a bit lengthy. Overall, it is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description covers purpose, scope, and categories, while the schema covers parameters and defaults. Nothing essential seems missing for an agent to correctly decide to call this tool.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds examples for category input and notes market options, but these are already in the schema. It does not provide substantial additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 the verb '查询' (query) and the resource '某产品品类进入目标市场的强制认证/标签/环保要求', defining a specific scope. It also lists covered categories, which distinguishes it from siblings like export_compliance_checklist and hs_code_reference.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (querying market access requirements for a category and market), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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