export_reg_check_country

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's verb '確認します' matches a read-only operation. The description adds the output groups (A/B/C/D) and notes the relationship to comprehensive licenses, which is useful context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like auth requirements or rate limits.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes a relevant consequence (license type differences). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and why it matters. It lacks explicit error-handling or edge-case information, but for this complexity level, it is complete enough.

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% for the single parameter 'country_name', which already explains that it accepts Japanese or English names. The main description does not add further parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific action ('確認します') and resource ('指定された国の輸出管理上のステータス'), and specifies the output format (グループA/B/C/D). It also provides additional context about comprehensive license types, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like export_reg_get_white_countries.

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 when to use the tool (when you need a country's export control status), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. The mention of comprehensive license types provides some context, but there is no direct guidance compared to sibling tools.

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