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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this operation is free, local, does no registry lookup, translation, or payment, and that readiness is not verification. This caveat is valuable and goes beyond the basic function, though it stops short of describing exact return behavior or failure modes.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important framing ('Free local input preflight, NOT entity resolution'). Every sentence adds essential context, and the caveat about verification is placed last for emphasis without bloat.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and limitations well. But it omits practical invocation details such as whether at least one parameter is required, what the prepared 'request shapes' look like, and how the result is returned.

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 compensate. It maps the two parameters to 'a Chinese legal name or USCC,' which gives real semantic meaning to company and uscc. However, it does not clarify input formats, whether one is required, or whether both may be supplied together.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: it 'check[s] a Chinese legal name or USCC' and 'prepares request shapes.' It explicitly contrasts itself with entity resolution and registry lookup, which helps distinguish it from the sibling evidence tools.

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 clearly frames this as a local preflight step and warns that 'input_ready does not mean the identity is verified,' implying it should be used before verification/evidence tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use resolve_china_company versus the sibling tools or name alternatives, leaving the routing mostly implicit.

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