Check Export Compliance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the return structure, error conditions (supplier_id not found), and important nuance about incomplete compliance data ('Missing data = "not confirmed", not "non-compliant"'). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, prerequisite, workflow, returns, errors, note). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with complex behavioral nuances.

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 tool's complexity (compliance checking with data completeness issues), the description provides excellent contextual completeness despite no output schema. It explains the return structure, error conditions, and important behavioral nuances about incomplete data. Combined with comprehensive annotations, this gives the agent everything needed to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format of supplier_id beyond 'from search_suppliers' or elaborate on enum values). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verb ('Check') and resource ('supplier compliance requirements for a target export market'). It distinguishes from siblings like search_suppliers (which finds suppliers) and get_supplier_detail (which provides general info) by focusing specifically on export compliance verification.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines with 'USE WHEN' examples (e.g., user asks about export eligibility), a clear prerequisite ('MUST have a valid supplier_id from search_suppliers'), and a workflow sequence ('search_suppliers → check_compliance'). It also distinguishes when NOT to use it (when you don't have a supplier_id).

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