foreign_entry_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, making the tool's safe, read-only nature clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond listing, lacking details on authentication or data volume. With strong annotations, the description is adequate but not enhanced.

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 single concise Japanese sentence that front-loads the purpose. It contains no redundant information and efficiently conveys the tool's function.

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 simple list retrieval tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns. No additional context is necessary given the tool's low complexity and the presence of strong annotations.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly omits them. According to guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is met.

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 a list of knowledge categories related to foreign companies and foreign nationals entering Japan, using a specific verb ('取得します') and resource ('知識カテゴリの一覧'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'foreign_entry_check' which likely provides details rather than a list.

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 usage for listing categories, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'foreign_entry_check' or other category list tools. No exclusions or context are provided.

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