qfzp_check

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return values and the specific exclusion for SaaS, but does not elaborate on other behaviors like handling invalid inputs or rate limits. This is adequate for a simple check 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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences: the first states the primary action, the second adds critical detail about return values and a key exclusion. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers return types and a crucial rule, and an output schema exists to detail the return structure. However, it lacks clarity on parameter usage and context, which would be expected for a tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 input schema has two parameters (industry with default 'general', is_free_zone with default true) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what these parameters mean or how they influence eligibility, failing to compensate for the missing schema 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 clearly states the verb 'Check' and the specific resource 'QFZP eligibility for a free zone business', distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other tax or eligibility checks.

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?

While the description implies usage for checking QFZP eligibility, it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. However, it does include a key exclusion (SaaS is not qualifying) which offers some conditional guidance.

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