export_reg_get_annex3_2

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a read-only operation, and the description '取得します' is consistent. The description adds the purpose and the specific list, but no additional behavioral traits like return format or special handling. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the use case. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it efficient and clear.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states what it retrieves and why it is used. However, it does not explicitly describe the return format or any edge cases, which would be helpful if the list behavior is non-obvious. The use case adds context, making it mostly complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema has no properties. The description does not need to explain any parameters. A baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate, and the description provides no conflicting information.

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 retrieves the list from Appendix 3-2 (UN arms embargo countries/regions) of the Export Trade Control Order, with a specific verb '取得します' (get). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like export_reg_get_annex (generic) and export_reg_get_white_countries (different list).

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 includes a clear context for when to use the tool: for objective requirements determination under catch-all regulations (キャッチオール規制の客観要件判定). This provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the top score.

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