CN Evidence

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It usefully discloses the payment requirement ($0.002 USDC on Base via x402) and summarizes what evidence is returned. However, it is silent on whether this is strictly read-only, what authentication or prerequisites are needed, and how failures or ambiguous matches are handled.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the critical cost information and then lists the evidence scope. It contains no filler, though terms like 'provenance scope' and 'ambiguity-safe linkage' are jargon-heavy and could be clearer.

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, no annotations, and only vague usage context, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call this tool confidently. It lacks a concrete return contract, explicit distinction from the 'full' sibling, and guidance on how to structure the query or resolve ambiguous supplier identities.

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% and the description does not compensate: it never mentions the 'query' parameter, uscc, or company, despite claiming 'company identity' in the output. An agent must rely entirely on the nested schema properties to understand that it needs either an 18-character USCC or a Chinese company name.

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 identifies the tool as low-cost Chinese supplier screening and lists concrete evidence categories (company identity, procurement track record, regulatory-history summary, provenance scope, ambiguity-safe linkage). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_china_supplier_evidence_full beyond the 'basic' name and the 'low-cost' qualifier, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'low-cost' suggests this is the cheaper, likely lighter-weight option compared to get_china_supplier_evidence_full, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of resolve_china_company. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name and cost alone.

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, the description must carry behavioral context. It usefully discloses a concrete behavioral trait: 'Paid $0.01 USDC on Base via x402'. It also lists output categories like procurement awards and regulatory history. However, it does not explain failure modes, response shape, or what happens when no evidence is found.

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, dense sentence that packs payment, scope, and output categories without padding. The payment requirement is front-loaded, and the list of evidence types earns its place, though the run-on structure is slightly hard to parse.

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 nested request schema, payment requirement, and sibling tools, the description leaves several gaps: it never explains how evidence_limit or include_evidence affect behavior, how to provide the company/USCC, or what 'ambiguity-safe linkage' means operationally. It names important output categories but not enough context for confident invocation.

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%, and the description provides no meaning for the request parameters, USCC, company, evidence_limit, or include_evidence. It mentions data categories but does not connect them to any parameter, so it does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 identifies a clear resource ('full Chinese supplier due diligence') and distinguishes it from the sibling 'basic' tool via 'full' and 'detailed evidence rows'. However, it opens with a payment phrase rather than a direct verb+resource statement, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of get_china_supplier_evidence_basic or resolve_china_company. The description implies a fuller result set, but it never states selection criteria, exclusions, or alternatives.

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 carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is free, that it resolves to exact legal entities, and that ambiguous names return candidates. However, it does not describe what happens when no match is found, whether candidates include confidence scores, or any rate limits. The 'Free' prefix is useful behavioral context, but the description could be more transparent about edge cases.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The key action ('resolve') and purpose ('before buying evidence') are front-loaded, and the candidate behavior is stated succinctly. Every sentence 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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the input, the purpose, and the ambiguity behavior. It lacks explicit mention of what happens with no match or how candidates are presented, but given the tool's simplicity and the 100% schema coverage, this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter ('Chinese company or supplier name'). The description adds the purpose of the parameter (resolving to legal entity) but does not add format details, examples, or disambiguation guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('Chinese company/supplier name to the exact legal entity'), and clarifies the purpose ('before buying evidence'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting ambiguous names are returned as candidates, which helps an agent understand this is a disambiguation/lookup step rather than an evidence retrieval tool.

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 when to use this tool: before purchasing evidence, to resolve a name to the exact legal entity. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives or state when not to use them, but the context signals show siblings are evidence retrieval tools, and the description's 'before buying evidence' provides clear contextual guidance. A small gap is the lack of explicit mention of alternatives.

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