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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses that access is free but rate-limited and that the payload contains applicable requirements, citations, labels and testing notes.

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 Chinese half is a faithful duplicate of the English half rather than added information, roughly doubling length without new content. The rest is front-loaded and the return-value list is efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return payload. Given a read-only tool with full annotation coverage, the only meaningful gap is the unexplained materials_text parameter and the absence of any paging behaviour despite the rate-limit mention.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it explains product, category and for_children but completely omits materials_text, one of four parameters. That leaves roughly a quarter of the input surface undefined anywhere.

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 verb and resource ("List category requirements for product") and lists the dimensions that scope the result (category, for_children). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names which sibling (e.g. get_compliance_check vs request_compliance_check) it replaces.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_compliance_check, list_compliance_checks or request_compliance_check, all of which sit in the same compliance namespace. The only usage signal is "free, rate-limited", which describes cost rather than the decision of when to call it.

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