export_reg_get_parameter_thresholds

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds some context about the underlying data source (ministerial ordinance and item numbers) but does not disclose output format, potential limitations, or whether all thresholds are returned at once. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate—the description adds moderate value beyond the annotation.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is concise and does not waste words, though the second clause rephrases the purpose rather than adding new factual detail. This is efficient but not maximally tight, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 provides sufficient context: it explains what the thresholds are for, how they are derived (item number + ministerial ordinance), and the regulatory purpose. However, the phrase 'combining item numbers and ministerial ordinance' could imply the user must provide both inputs, when only item_number is required. This slight ambiguity prevents a perfect score.

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 fully documents the only parameter 'item_number' with a detailed description of values 1-15 and their meanings, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond referring to 'item numbers', so it does not need to compensate. Baseline 3 is correct when 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 retrieves technical parameter thresholds for each item number of the Export Control List regulations. It specifies the exact resource (thresholds) and the scope (per item number), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle laws, annexes, or ordinance searches. The action verb '取得します' is specific and unambiguous.

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 the intended use case: checking regulated technical specifications by combining item numbers and ministerial ordinance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it when threshold data is needed. Sibling names like export_reg_get_annex and export_reg_get_ministerial_ordinance are distinct in purpose, though no direct comparison is provided.

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