export_reg_get_white_countries

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'retrieves' aligns with that. It adds legal context and eligibility info but no additional behavioral traits such as pagination or output format. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, compact sentence that states the action, resource, and relevant context without any filler.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description sufficiently conveys what is returned (the list) and its legal basis. No output schema exists, but the description's 'list of Group A countries' covers the return type. Minor omissions like ordering or codes are acceptable given the low complexity.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4; description adds no parameter details needed.

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 of Group A countries specified in Annex 3, using a specific verb (取得します) and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like export_reg_check_country by focusing on the full 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 provides context that Group A countries are eligible for comprehensive licenses, implying a use case. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when to prefer this over sibling tools like export_reg_check_country.

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