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

Discloses that it returns classification details, controlled jurisdictions, and license requirements, and that it is a reference tool (no side effects). However, with no annotations, it lacks information on error behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Concise and well-structured: first line states purpose, second clarifies nature, then context, Args, and Examples. Every sentence is informative with no fluff. Length is appropriate for the simplicity of the tool.

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?

Covers purpose, usage context (export control regimes), parameter examples, and return content. Lacks error handling details, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this. Overall sufficiently complete for a simple lookup tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description provides examples and explains the parameter meaning ('The ECCN to look up'). This adds significant value beyond the schema, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

States clearly that the tool looks up an ECCN and returns classification details, jurisdictions, and license requirements. Distinguishes itself from siblings like 'export_controls_screen' by focusing on a specific code.

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?

Labels itself as a 'pure reference tool' implying read-only usage, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., when to use eccn_lookup vs export_controls_screen). Examples subtly guide usage but lack explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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