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.