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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior needs no restating. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the three categories of result the agent will receive, which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting whether results are advisory or binding, and how unknown products are handled.

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?

A single sentence with the key outputs front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information, and the scoping ('East African Community tariff code', 'Uganda duty') is stated up front.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and the jurisdictional scope. The remaining gap is minor: it doesn't say how origin_country changes results or what precision to expect from a free-text description.

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% – both parameters (description, origin_country) carry their own documentation including format and the CN default. The description only echoes the product-description input and never mentions origin_country, so it adds essentially nothing 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 names a specific verb ('Find') and enumerates exactly the three resources returned: the EAC tariff code, the Uganda duty, and the import checks (standards, permits). No sibling tool (payments, routing, sourcing) touches tariff classification, so the operation is unambiguous without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for a product description' – the agent infers it should supply a plain-words product description to get classification. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of how it relates to cost estimation (e.g. estimate_delivered_cost) or sourcing flows, and no stated exclusions or limits.

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