export_reg_get_annex

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

While the readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the safe read nature, the description adds only that item_number can retrieve details of a specific category. It does not disclose that table_number can be set to 2 or 3 for different annex types, nor what happens when item_number is omitted, making the described scope misleading.

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 two concise sentences with the main verb and object front-loaded. Every sentence is purposeful, though the second sentence mostly duplicates information already present in the schema.

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 tool has no output schema and the description omits critical functional details such as the table_number options, default behavior when item_number is absent, and the structure of returned data. The mismatch between the description's exclusive focus on Annex 1 and the schema's broader capabilities further reduces completeness.

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 provides 100% description coverage with detailed parameter semantics, so the baseline applies. The tool description contributes no additional semantic value beyond restating item_number's role and does not mention table_number at all.

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 action (取得します) and the resource (別表第1 of the Export Trade Control Order), and notes that item numbers can be specified for category details. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like export_reg_get_annex3_2, and the schema's table_number parameter suggests a broader scope than the description implies.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_reg_search_law or export_reg_get_annex3_2. The description also fails to mention the table_number parameter's ability to fetch other annexes (catch-all, white countries), which could mislead an agent about when this tool is appropriate.

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