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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds a concrete behavioral trait: a 50-result cap. It also enumerates what each returned record contains, going beyond what the annotations provide without contradicting them.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope before the return-value summary. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or redundant.

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 compensates by explaining the return shape (up to 50 codes, official description, per-code link, unit of quantity, EEI requirement, HS code, markets). For a single-parameter read-only lookup this gives the agent everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 single query parameter is already fully documented with the same examples. The description restates the product-words-or-code-prefix distinction but adds no syntax, formatting, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline-3 expectation.

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 verb (Search) and a precisely scoped resource (the official U.S. Census Bureau Schedule B, a 10-digit export classification used to file EEI). The parenthetical definition of Schedule B clearly separates it from tariff/import siblings like search_us_tariffs and get_us_tariff, so an agent can distinguish it without opening menus.

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 tells the agent the two query modes (product words or code prefix) which is genuinely useful context for invocation. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as search_us_tariffs or how to handle ambiguous lookups, so usage is only implied rather than guided.

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