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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and non-destructive, lowering the burden. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the regulatory basis and clarifying that a match means 'the goods may need an export licence.'

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 only two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is included efficiently.

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 read-only, non-destructive tool with three parameters and clear workflow placement, the description covers the essential semantics. It omits explicit return-format or error behavior, but that is not critical given the self-explanatory check behavior.

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?

The schema already documents hs_code and destination, and the description reinforces destination as optional with legal context. However, the locale parameter is not explained beyond its enum values, and the description does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema.

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 an explicit action and resource: 'Check whether an HS customs code falls under EU dual-use export controls (Regulation 2021/821 and equivalents)'. It also mentions optional destination filtering and distinguishes this from related siblings like check_sanctions and lookup_hs_code.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use it after lookup_hs_code, before the person commits to a shipment.' This tells the agent when to invoke it in a workflow, though it does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative tools.

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