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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the return fields (HTS code, duty rates, confidence, reasoning) and mentions the payment mechanism ($0.04 USDC per call). It does not cover failure modes or prerequisites, but overall offers solid transparency.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds essential details about functionality, return values, and pricing. There is no waste, and it is well front-loaded.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists all key return components (code, path, duty rates, confidence, reasoning, alternates). It also clarifies pricing and source. It could be more complete by addressing error handling or edge cases, but is largely sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add additional semantic information beyond what is in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Classify any product to its HS / HTS customs code from a plain-English description', specifying the verb (classify) and resource (HS/HTS customs code). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on customs classification, unlike other tools such as product-barcode or part-lookup.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (classifying products from plain English descriptions) and mentions the source (live USITC schedule). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives for other classification needs.

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