Chinese filter values

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior context — results include listing counts, and city values must match exactly — but says nothing about the shape or format of returned values despite there being no output schema.

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 what the tool returns, followed by the two practical usage notes. No filler, though the category enumeration duplicates the schema enum.

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 one-parameter, optional-arg lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (valid values plus listing counts) and the key calling constraint (exact city value). It is close to complete, lacking only explicit handling of the no-argument case.

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 single 'list' parameter is an enum whose valid values the description largely restates (makes, fuels, cities, sources, sorts). It does add value by explaining the consequence of passing 'list' (one list only, implying all lists otherwise), but it does not clarify the omitted-parameter case explicitly or the format of returned entries.

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 resource ('valid values for the Chinese search filters') and enumerates the five categories, making it distinguishable from korean_filter_values by scope. The verb is implicit (a lookup/reference tool) rather than an action, but the purpose is clear.

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?

It gives targeted usage guidance — city filters require the exact 'value' of a city entry, and passing 'list' returns a single list. However, it never says when to call this relative to sibling search_chinese_cars, so the when-to-use is only implied.

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