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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the per-rule payload (kind, gate, who must act, applicable-from date, official source, checked date), the 180-day stale marker, that upcoming rules are included, and how omitted country is resolved. This is rich context well beyond the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and clear, but the prose is very dense and dominated by long illustrative lists (UV filters, FCC/RED/Giteki/ISED, Section 232, CBAM, EPR). The examples aid comprehension but the single sprawling passage is longer than needed to convey the same information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: it names the fields each rule returns and the product_traits field. Combined with parameter behavior it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reiterates trait detection and the country-omission behavior, adding some cross-parameter meaning (rules triggered by code or trait) but not new syntax or examples beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific job: surface the non-obvious rules a Korean exporter would miss beyond category compliance, and enumerates the rule families (blockers, approvals, duties, filings). It clearly reads as a compliance/regulatory blind-spot detector, distinct from siblings like country_brief or market_scan. It doesn't name a sibling tool explicitly, so it stops short of 5.

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?

It gives real usage context: rules are triggered by HS code or product trait, 'pass description or traits,' and 'omit country to check every market in the plan's table.' It frames the tool as 'starting points, not legal advice' and as complementary to category compliance. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer a sibling or when not to use this.

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