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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the description focuses on added context: 10-language input support, coverage breadth, disambiguation rules ('ginseng cream' is 3304, not 1211), and conditional return fields (hs_by_form). It does not describe fallback behavior when no item matches, which is the main remaining gap.

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 core action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, with disambiguation and return-shape caveats following. The parenthetical example lists (kimchi 2005, shampoo 3305, ginseng roots 1211…) are slightly overstuffed for a single paragraph but each illustrates a mapping rule.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so for the conditional hs_by_form cases. Coverage limits and disambiguation rules are covered; the unmatched-input path and general return shape are not.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above that by clarifying the query accepts any of 10 languages and raw HS digits (e.g. '3304'), plus concrete examples of what a valid query looks like. It adds real interpretive value over 'Product name, alias or HS digits.'

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 a specific verb and resource: resolve a product description to one of 35 HS4 items or the usual HS4 code of ~60 other consumer products. It names the downstream consumers (gtm_plan, market_scan) and the domain, so an agent can distinguish it from every sibling in the 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?

"Use before other tools when unsure of the HS code" gives explicit sequencing and a clear conditional trigger. The 'when unsure' framing implies the inverse case, but there is no explicit statement of when to skip it or what to do on no-match.

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