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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only lookup operation via the word '查' (lookup), but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it mention any limitations, rate limits, or error conditions. For a simple lookup tool, this is minimally sufficient but not thorough.

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 a single concise sentence in Chinese, front-loading the action and resource. It includes the relevant level of detail (6-digit) without any superfluous words. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one well-described parameter), an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), and the description covers the purpose and level of detail, the definition is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. It lacks only explicit handling of edge cases, which are minor for a lookup tool.

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 provides 100% description coverage for the single 'keyword' parameter, including language support and examples. The tool description merely restates 'by product keyword' without adding new meaning or nuance beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 the tool's purpose: quick lookup of HS code classification by product keyword, specifying the resource (HS codes), the action (lookup), and the granularity (6-digit global harmonized level). It distinguishes itself from siblings like export_compliance_checklist and market_access_requirements, which focus on different aspects of international trade.

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 implies usage for HS code lookup but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to choose this over them. It is clear that this tool is for code classification, while the siblings cover compliance and market access, but no explicit 'use this when...' guidance is provided.

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