UNE Sino-Gateway

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only text generation but never says so, and says nothing about what the generated output contains beyond 'model clause', whether parameters are required, or what defaults apply. The PRC-compliance claim is the only behavioral context offered.

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?

A single tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return artifact and the meaning of optional inputs. It does neither: it never clarifies the shape of the generated clause or how omitted parameters are resolved, leaving real gaps for a 3-parameter 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?

All three parameters (lang, seat, arbitrators) are completely absent from the description, even though schema coverage is only 67% — the 'arbitrators' enum has no schema description at all. With zero required parameters, the description gives no guidance on defaults or what happens if a parameter is omitted.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact: generates a bilingual CIETAC arbitration model clause, with the added qualifier that it is compliant with PRC Arbitration Law. This is far more precise than the name alone, though it does not reference any of the sibling tools (which are unrelated in function, so differentiation is naturally implicit).

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 on when to use this versus the sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of when it would be inappropriate. The agent is left to infer everything about triggering conditions from the one-line purpose.

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 full burden. It discloses output traits (bilingual, cryptographically sealed) but says nothing about side effects, whether the notice is stored/filed/served, required permissions, idempotency, or how the audit seal is produced. For a legal-document generation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and deliverable come first. Slightly overloaded with legal qualifiers but nothing is redundant.

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 5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and what happens to the generated notice (file, message, filing action). It omits these and gives no guidance on the remedy choice, leaving the agent under-informed for a legally consequential operation.

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 80%, so the schema already documents bl_number, cargo_desc, contract_ref, and defect_summary. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all and does not clarify the remedy enum options, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (generates) and a well-defined resource (a formal bilingual English/Chinese dispute notice) with legal framing under PRC law and CISG. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools by name and function, though it does not explicitly contrast itself against them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when an agent should pick this over sino_cietac_clause or sino_inspection_delay. The purpose implies defect-dispute scenarios but nothing tells the agent the triggering conditions.

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 carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a deterministic statutory calculation citing specific articles, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not state the output form, how the PRC vs CISG regimes are selected, or whether either can be queried independently.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler; the core action and its legal basis are front-loaded and every clause 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 calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (e.g., deadline dates, a computed window) and how defect_type modifies the calculation. It leaves the return shape and the PRC/CISG interaction unexplained, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the apparent/hidden enum for defect_type. The description adds no syntax, format, or behavioral meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (calculates) and specific resources (statutory inspection deadlines and statute of repose), anchored to named legal sources (PRC Civil Code Art. 621, CISG Art. 38/39). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like sino_defect_notice or sino_defect_notice, though the distinct naming and legal-deadline framing make it reasonably separable.

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 never says when to invoke this tool versus sino_defect_notice or the other Sino siblings, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., which legal regime governs, contract context). Usage must be inferred entirely from the purpose statement.

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 full burden. 'Queries' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what a concordance result contains, whether it maps provisions across the four codes, or any limits on lookup. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves the agent guessing about behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the cross-jurisdictional scope, with no filler. It is efficient, though it could have used the remaining space to answer the usage and output questions.

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 cross-jurisdictional concordance tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits what the returned concordance looks like and what constitutes a valid topic key beyond the schema's example. It is thin for the conceptual complexity of the operation.

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% and the single parameter is documented with a concrete example ('conformite_marchandises'). The description adds only 'for a given legal topic,' which restates rather than extends the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Queries') and resource ('statutory concordance') and names the four legal frameworks covered, which lets an agent see it is a cross-jurisdictional lookup rather than a procedural/deadline tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sino_cietac_clause, sino_defect_notice, or sino_inspection_delay, but the subject matter is clearly distinct.

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 tool versus its siblings or when it is inappropriate. The phrase 'for a given legal topic' implies a lookup context but gives no routing guidance, no prerequisites, and no note on how topic keys are chosen.

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