Build a buyer-ready MFDS K-beauty ingredient source-map sample for Compliance Scout. Official-source mapping only; not legal advice, import clearance, sending, invoicing, or payment collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | ||
| ingredients | No | ||
| target_market | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Official-source mapping only' and negations, but fails to mention whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what side effects exist, or what the output format is.
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 concise sentences, with the primary purpose stated first and boundary conditions immediately after. Every sentence adds non-redundant information, and there is no wasted text.
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 tool has three parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, how the sample is built, what happens if parameters are omitted, or any prerequisites for successful use.
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 input schema has no descriptions for any of the three parameters (category, ingredients, target_market) and the description provides no additional meaning about them. This leaves agents guessing how to populate these fields and what values are valid.
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's action ('Build') and specific deliverable ('buyer-ready MFDS K-beauty ingredient source-map sample for Compliance Scout'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning a unique product and explicitly excludes unrelated services like legal advice or payment collection.
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 clear boundaries by listing what the tool is not for (e.g., legal advice, import clearance), helping agents avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or specify exactly when to use this one over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but create_buy_ship_cart_order and create_direct_buy_ship_order are nearly identical, causing potential confusion. Additionally, build_buyer_discovery_queue and build_cash_sprint_packet overlap in targeting buyer segments.
All tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (build_, get_, create_, search_) with consistent snake_case, making it easy to infer functionality from the name.
With 26 tools covering diverse domains (stock market, real estate, tourism, sourcing, etc.), the scope feels broad and somewhat bloated. A more focused set would improve coherence.
The tool set covers many aspects of Korea data and seller workflows, but notable gaps exist: no tools for actual listing posting, sending communications, or completing transactions, as many build_ tools explicitly exclude those steps.