export_reg_check_user_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is present, and the description adds value by disclosing that the tool fetches and parses Excel data from METI, implying external data access and network dependency. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the underlying process and data source, though it does not describe every behavioral nuance.

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 three concise sentences, each contributing essential information: the matching action, the nature of the list, and the data retrieval/parsing mechanism. No unnecessary wording, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with good annotations, the description adequately explains the domain, data source, and lookup mechanism. However, since there is no output schema, it does not describe the output format (e.g., matched results vs. boolean), leaving a minor gap.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, explaining that 'organization' supports partial matching and 'country' filters in Japanese. The tool description itself does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 function: '組織名を照合' (matches organization names) against the specific METI Foreign User List (懸念企業リスト). This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools dealing with laws, annexes, or country 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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to check an organization name against METI's list of entities of concern. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to infer appropriate use.

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