asia_intelligence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions a cost ($0.02 per request) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, or read-only nature. The description is minimal for a tool that generates intelligence.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that conveys the core purpose and cost. It is front-loaded with the most important info but could benefit from slightly more structure.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the output looks like, how to interpret results, or when to choose this over sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully described in the schema. The description's mention of 'trade policy' aligns with the enum values but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 it provides 'trade policy intelligence and cross-border investment opportunities' for China/Taiwan/Japan, which conveys a clear purpose of delivering analytical insights. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like asia_news_api or asia_market_data, which could also cover some of these regions.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for appropriate scenarios, such as when deeper analysis is needed compared to raw market data or news.

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