China Market Access & Standards

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: 'Catalog matches only; does not determine certification or legal applicability,' 'No match returns an empty data array,' 'Missing required or invalid input produces an argument error,' and pagination/limits behavior. This gives the agent a good model of what happens at runtime. It doesn't state whether repeated calls with the same arguments return identical results aside from the idempotent hint, but the annotations cover that. The description is honest and consistent with the readOnlyHint.

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 compact paragraph of seven sentences, which is appropriate for the complexity (4 params, pagination, error behavior, applicability caveat). It front-loads the purpose and required input, then covers return shape, scope limitation, no-match behavior, and error behavior in order. Each sentence adds value — no filler or repetition of the schema's parameter types. It's slightly dense and could be broken into bullets, but it is efficient and well-ordered.

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 4-parameter paginated search tool with 100% schema coverage, detailed annotations, and no output schema, the description covers most agent needs: what it returns, edge cases (no match, errors), scope limitations, and pagination guidance. It doesn't specify the exact structure of 'pagination and limits' (e.g., what next_offset looks like) or the count of records returned, but the schema indicates pages and next_offset, and the description references the returned fields. It's nearly complete; a small gap is not explaining the relationship to snapshot for consistency across pages, though the schema covers that.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% and parameters have detailed descriptions. The description adds a little beyond the schema: it calls out that 'product' can be product OR category text and notes the literal case-sensitive substring semantics is in the schema. It clarifies the structured record fields returned (source_class, provenance, snapshot, pagination, limits), which helps understand what the parameters relate to. Given high schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description earns a 4 by semantically framing the product parameter (product/category text) and the snapshot parameter's role, adding value 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?

States a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('CCC catalog product entries'), and search key ('product or category text'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns structured records with provenance/snapshot/pagination, and by declaring 'Catalog matches only; does not determine certification or legal applicability' — separating it from tools like find_ccc_standard_references and find_license_catalog_items. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without reading the schema.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need CCC catalog product entries by product/category text, and gives exclusion criteria ('Catalog matches only; does not determine certification or legal applicability'), which tells agents not to use it when certification or legal applicability is needed. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools (e.g., find_license_catalog_items or find_ccc_standard_references), which would make routing even clearer. The context of 'catalog entries' plus the exclusion is strong but the when-not-to-use could name named 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?

The description meaningfully extends the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the paginated return shape, the specific fields returned (source_class, provenance, snapshot, pagination, limits), empty-data behavior on no match, and argument-error behavior on invalid input. This is substantial behavioral context beyond annotations.

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-loads the purpose before returning to inputs, outputs, and edge cases. Minor redundancy exists in 'Inputs: standard_number' and 'Required: standard_number', but the overall structure is efficient and each major concern is addressed in a separate clause.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description conveys the essential return structure, pagination behavior, no-match behavior, required input, and error condition. Given the tool's simple parameter set and rich annotations, an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 all four parameters in detail. The description only mentions standard_number and its required status, adding little beyond what the schema already states. This fits the baseline of 3 where the schema carries the semantic weight.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find occurrences of a recorded standard number in CCC reference metadata.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on products, standards metadata, or recalls. The added qualifier 'Reference occurrences only; does not imply equivalence or applicability' further sharpens the tool's scope.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: to find recorded standard-number occurrences in CCC reference metadata. It also provides an implicit exclusion by warning that results do not imply equivalence or applicability. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the boundaries are clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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?

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavior: paginated structured records, no-match returns an empty array, invalid input returns an argument error, and no legal inference is made. This goes well beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and stays compact while covering outputs, limitations, and edge cases. There is minor redundancy between 'Inputs: rule_number' and 'Required: rule_number', but overall the structure 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?

For a read-only, parameter-light lookup tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the return fields, states pagination behavior, explains empty results, and documents error behavior. An agent has enough to call and interpret the result correctly.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description mentions rule_number and pagination/limits but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find recorded versions and dates for a CCC rule number.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools by focusing on rule version history rather than products, standards, or trade statistics.

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 gives practical usage context by noting it returns 'recorded version facts only' and clarifying it 'does not infer legal applicability.' This is a useful boundary, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other use cases.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating that the tool takes no arguments and returns only the standard document, not records or facts, but it does not describe the document's structure or any pagination/format details.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying exclusions ('not business records or an assessment of facts') are valuable for agent decision-making.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description is complete enough. It tells an agent what the tool returns, what it does not return, and that no arguments are needed. The lack of an output schema is offset by the clear high-level description of the document.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the description explicitly confirms 'Takes no arguments,' so there is no ambiguity about invocation. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description removes any doubt about whether arguments are needed.

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 ('Retrieve') and a clear resource ('definitions of information formation classes, provenance fields and snapshot/version metadata'), and further clarifies that it returns the information-standard document rather than business records or factual assessments. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from likely-related siblings such as get_standard_metadata.

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 its use case: call this tool when you need the standard definitions/metadata document, and it explicitly says it does not return business records or factual assessments. However, it does not name alternatives or explain when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_standard_metadata or search_standard_metadata.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it discloses the return format (source_class, provenance, snapshot, pagination), the empty data array on no match, and the argument error on missing/invalid input. These are not implied by the annotations and give the agent precise expectations.

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, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing behavior and requirements. It avoids fluff but includes some redundancy (e.g., 'Inputs: standard_number' and 'Required: standard_number') that could be trimmed. Overall it is well-structured and not overly verbose.

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 read-only metadata retrieval tool with a well-documented schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, what it does not return, empty result behavior, and error handling. Pagination mechanics are implied by 'paginated' and the schema's offset/limit/snapshot details, which is sufficient given the schema's richness. Minor gaps like the meaning of source_class/provenance are acceptable without an output schema.

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 every parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond restating that standard_number is required and that invalid input yields an error, which is more about error behavior than parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 tool retrieves standard metadata given a known standard number, and explicitly distinguishes it from returning full text. It also names the primary input (standard_number) and the output type (paginated structured records), making its purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from search tools like search_standard_metadata.

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 a clear usage condition: use when the recorded standard number is known. It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('no standard full text'), implicitly steering users to other tools for full text. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond that condition, so it stops short of full guidance.

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?

Annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: it returns only metadata (no full text), returns an empty data array on no match, and describes the paginated record fields and error behavior for missing/invalid input. This gives the agent a richer picture of what to expect.

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 leads with the core purpose in the first sentence. Some slight redundancy exists ('Inputs: query, status' and later 'Required: query'), but each clause does add a distinct piece of information: result fields, no-full-text limitation, no-match behavior, and error handling. It is efficient without being terse.

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 5-parameter schema with full coverage and the presence of read-only annotations, the description supplies enough operational context: required input, optional filter, paginated response shape, no-match outcome, and error semantics. It does not explicitly explain how to use next_offset for continued pagination, but the schema already covers that. The main missing piece is alternative-tool guidance, which is more of a usage-guideline issue than a completeness 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 fully documents all five parameters with detailed semantics (literal case-sensitive match, exact status match, pagination offsets, and snapshot behavior). The description only restates 'query, status' and 'Required: query,' which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is therefore 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 ('Find'), resource ('standard metadata'), and search criteria ('by title text, optionally filtered by its recorded status'). It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_standard_metadata, so the 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 description conveys how to use the tool (query is required, status is optional) and touches on return behavior, but it offers no explicit when-to-use-versus-alternatives guidance. The sibling list includes get_standard_metadata, yet the description never says 'use this for title search; use get_standard_metadata for exact identifier lookup.' Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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