Japan Imported Food Inspection Orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the content categories returned (prices, licensing, limits, freshness), which is useful context, but an output schema exists and would surface the same structure, so the incremental disclosure is modest.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause enumerates distinct payload content, so nothing is wasted.

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 no parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values or safety. It is nearly complete for this simple tool; only a hint about when to reach for it is absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies under the '0 params' rule.

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?

Clear verb ("List") plus resource ("the tools of this server") and an enumeration of the payload contents (prices, data sources, licensing, daily limits, freshness). It is plainly distinguishable from siblings like get_receipt or drone_flight_check, though it does not explicitly name or contrast 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; usage is only implied by the discovery framing ("the tools of this server"). An agent can infer this is the entry point for learning available tools and pricing, but nothing states that intent directly.

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?

Goes well past readOnlyHint=true by disclosing cost ('Free'), the failure mode and error code (RECEIPT_NOT_FOUND for unknown/unsettled ids), and the retention window (90 days after settlement). These are exactly the runtime traits an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the receipt_id, followed by behavioral facts. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers cost, error behavior, and retention limits. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 schema already specifies the receipt_id format ('rcpt_' + 64 hex characters, maxLength 80). The description only names the identifier without adding format or constraint detail, so the schema does the real work.

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 ('re-fetch'), specific resource ('stored result of a settled paid call'), and the keying mechanism ('by its receipt_id'). The 're-fetch ... for when the response was lost' framing clearly separates it from the unrelated sibling 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?

Gives an explicit triggering scenario: use it when a paid call's response was lost after payment. It also implies the boundary condition (unknown or unsettled ids are not valid targets), but does not name an alternative tool or state a when-not clause for other lookup paths.

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 only assert readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that MHLW silently replaces attachments without an amendment history, so diffs come from the service's own archived PDFs, and by stating the retention boundary (tracking_since) and the free window. These are exactly the operational caveats an agent needs before trusting or calling the tool.

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 scope question is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the long parenthetical about MHLW's unpublished amendment history and the trailing "Free window / Relay only" fragments make the prose denser than it needs to be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the remaining unknowns an agent would have: where the history starts, how far back free access extends, what categories of change are reported, and that the data is relayed rather than authoritative. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 limit, since, country and change_type with formats and defaults. The description's "since a date" and its enumeration of row/document change categories merely echo what the schema and enum already provide, adding no format or filtering nuance.

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?

Names a specific resource (Japan's MHLW imported food inspection order documents) and a specific operation (report what changed since a date), and the parenthetical explains the service's own PDF-version history as the data source. This is clearly distinguishable from import_order_lookup, which implies point-in-time lookup rather than change reporting.

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?

"History starts at tracking_since" and "Free window: last 30 days (see history_window)" tell the agent when results are available and what the access limit is, and "Relay only" signals a constraint. However, it never routes the agent between this tool and the sibling import_order_lookup (current state vs. changes), leaving the primary selection decision implicit.

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=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the three possible result states, row-level fields (document, version with file id and SHA-256, page, first_seen_at), the fact that matching is done in Japanese, and a legal-advice disclaimer. It does not explain what triggers 'unknown', which keeps it from a 5.

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 core question is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by result semantics and then the caveat, so the structure is sound. It is somewhat over-packed: the enumerated row fields (file id, SHA-256, page, first_seen_at) partially duplicate what the output schema already carries, which is minor waste in an otherwise tight definition.

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 multi-parameter, open-world lookup with an output schema present, the description supplies the matching rule (Japanese text), result-state vocabulary, and a legal caveat, which is enough to call it correctly. It omits how pagination/limit interacts with the result count and when 'unknown' is returned, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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 five parameters with examples and constraints (ISO codes, maxLength, limit range). The only description-level addition is 'Food names are matched in Japanese as in the documents', which largely restates the food parameter's own schema description. 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?

The opening sentence states a specific question verb and resource: whether an origin country, food or company appears in Japan's MHLW inspection order documents for imported foods. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like import_order_changes (what changed) and get_receipt (a specific record), so an agent can select it without opening 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?

Usage is implied by the question framing and the tri-state result ('listed', 'not_listed_in_current_documents', 'unknown'), which tells the agent this is a status-check tool. However it never names alternatives or states when NOT to use it (e.g. versus import_order_changes for change history), and no prerequisites or routing conditions are given.

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