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

With no annotations, the description fully owns behavioral disclosure. It details the tone contract ('heavy praise grounded in facts', 'gaps framed ONLY as limited cross-market awareness', 'Never emit fraud/risk/red-flag words') and explains the two-direction behavior and the 'gifted' approach. This is thorough and unambiguous.

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 long but front-loads the core purpose and directions. It includes necessary behavioral constraints. However, there is redundancy ('warm, appreciative' appears twice) and the usage paragraph could be tighter. It is adequate but not as crisp as the high benchmark.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and tone well. However, with 8 parameters and no schema descriptions, it leaves the meaning of most parameters unexplained. The output schema exists, but the description doesn't clarify how the parameters shape the output. This is a gap for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 for parameter meaning. It explains 'direction' and its two values, and implicitly 'company_name'. However, it does not describe is_listed, founded_year, listing_code, has_english_site, recent_disclosures, or registered_capital, leaving their impact on the output unclear. Relying on parameter names alone is insufficient at 0% 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to 'Draw a company's SELF-PORTRAIT CARD', specifying it as a warm, appreciative one-page profile. It details two directions (out/in) and explains the value-first gifting approach. This distinguishes it from audit/verification siblings, which focus on compliance checks rather than relationship-building profiles.

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 explicitly says 'Use when an agent introduces a company across the China/global divide,' providing a clear usage trigger. It also explains the two direction modes and the gifting strategy. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools (audit_checklist, verify_supplier, etc.) to avoid ambiguity.

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