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.