qfzp_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the fact that results enumerate three outcomes plus a reason and that SaaS income triggers counterparty/exclusion/IP assessment, but with an output schema present this return-value detail is largely redundant.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one line, then adds the outcome set and a domain caveat in two tight sentences. Slight waste in restating the enumerated return values that the output schema already provides.

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 read-only check with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition is adequate, but it omits any explanation of its two input parameters. An agent can call it, but cannot reason about how industry or is_free_zone affect the verdict.

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% for the two parameters (industry, is_free_zone), and the description never mentions either, so neither field's meaning or accepted values are explained anywhere. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Check QFZP eligibility for a free zone business'), which is a distinct corporate-tax concept an agent can tell apart from eligibility-adjacent siblings like dul_eligibility or golden_visa_check. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this check versus the other eligibility/compliance tools in the family (dul_eligibility, esr_status, golden_visa_check). The SaaS sentence hints at scope but is a domain caveat, not a when/when-not instruction.

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