IFC India Import Duty & Landed Cost

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return content (contact channels: WhatsApp, calculator, website), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose and the payload are stated immediately, and the parenthetical efficiently enumerates the returned channels.

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 zero-parameter, read-only retrieval with rich annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: the action, the vendor, and the returned contact methods. Minor gap: it doesn't say whether the returned details are static or refreshed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-input invocation by describing only a returned result, with no parameter semantics needed or missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns how to contact IFC - Imports From China'. It also names the concrete channels returned (WhatsApp, calculator, website), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like estimate_landed_cost, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 phrase 'for a confirmed China to India shipping and customs clearance quote' implies the trigger condition, distinguishing it implicitly from estimate_landed_cost's estimated quote. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative is given, so usage must be inferred.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by flagging the result as approximate and clarifying it is a fallback to authoritative packing-list data. It does not, however, say anything about accuracy range or what happens when product/hs_code are omitted.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the output definition is front-loaded, followed by the usage condition and then the exclusion. Every sentence 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?

For a read-only estimator with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs and the fallback rule adequately. The only gap is that it doesn't characterize the return value (e.g. whether it returns just a number or also a matched category/confidence), which would help since no output schema exists.

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 all four parameters, including that cartons 'improves the estimate' and hs_code's 2-to-8-digit format. The description restates weight and product type but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (estimates) and resource (shipping volume in CBM), plus the two inputs it derives from (gross weight and product type) and the geographic scope (goods from China). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like estimate_landed_cost or lookup_hs_code 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?

Explicitly names the triggering condition ('when the buyer knows the weight but not the CBM') and the when-not-to-use case with the preferred alternative ('if the buyer has the exact CBM from the supplier (packing list), that should be used instead'). Nothing is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds useful context beyond them: the estimate-only nature, the machine-authoritative caveat that IFC confirms the final quote, the shared engine with the online calculator, and the fallback approximation when weight or CBM is omitted. No auth/rate-limit detail, but those are not central here.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then cost components, then the estimate caveat and input guidance. The component list is dense but informative; every sentence carries a fact an agent would otherwise have to infer. Slightly long but not padded.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is appropriately complete: it outlines the returned cost components and the input fallback rules. It leaves mode default (sea), cartons, and hs_code semantics entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given the 75% coverage.

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 75%, so most parameters are documented, but the description still adds meaning by explaining the weight_kg/cbm either-or relationship and the fallback approximation behavior, plus the recommendation to use supplier-exact values. This clarifies the optionality interplay beyond what the schema alone states.

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?

States a specific verb (estimates) and resource (door-to-door landed cost in INR for China-to-India imports) with a concrete cost breakdown (BCD, SWS, AIDC, IGST, freight, insurance). The scope is distinctive enough that an agent can distinguish it from estimate_cbm_from_weight, lookup_hs_code or get_exchange_rates 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?

Gives clear context for use: it is an estimate and 'IFC confirms the final quote', and it tells the agent how to supply weight_kg/cbm. It does not, however, name any alternative tool or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of the 5-level routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the quote convention of the returned data (INR per unit of USD, CNY and INR), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the core fact (what is returned and in what unit convention) is front-loaded. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return semantics, and it does specify the currencies and the per-unit quoting convention. It does not describe the response shape (e.g., map keyed by currency) or whether rates are static or periodically refreshed, which is a minor remaining gap for a zero-parameter getter.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is 100% on an empty object, so no parameter detail is required.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the exchange rates') and scopes it to IFC's landed-cost estimates, which ties it to the sibling estimate_landed_cost. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 link to 'landed-cost estimates' implies the context in which the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no mention of alternatives among the siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating exactly which duty components come back (BCD, SWS, AIDC, IGST, anti-dumping, MIP, policy, compliance notes) and naming the data maintainer, which is meaningful for a tool with no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource before listing returned fields. The long duty-component enumeration is justified because there is no output schema, and nothing in the sentence is filler or redundant with the annotations.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the scope, return contents and data provenance an agent needs. Minor gaps remain: it does not say what happens for an unknown or non-China-origin code, nor how current the duty rates are, both of which would matter for a compliance lookup.

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% for the single hs_code parameter, and the schema already specifies the 8-digit ITC-HS pattern with an example. The description restates the domain constraint ('8-digit ITC-HS code') and adds the China-import scope, but contributes no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the Indian customs duty profile for an 8-digit ITC-HS code') and narrows the scope to goods imported from China. The 8-digit lookup framing separates it cleanly from search_hs_code, which implies keyword-based discovery, without the agent needing to open either 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 only implied by the scoping ('8-digit ITC-HS code', 'imported from China'), which does tell an agent it needs an exact code rather than a keyword. However, it never names search_hs_code as the tool to use when the code is unknown, nor estimate_landed_cost for downstream cost calculation, and states no exclusions (e.g. non-China origins are out of scope).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it names the underlying data source (IFC's Indian import duty database), the result cap (up to 10 matches), and the returned unit (8-digit codes with descriptions). It stops short of describing ranking/relevance or what an empty result means.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb and data source first, then input modes, then output shape. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 one required parameter, no nested objects and no output schema, the description adequately covers input modes, data scope and return shape, and annotations cover the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain, such as result ordering or whether partial/no matches are possible.

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% and the schema already explains the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description earns a bump by supplying concrete example queries ("bluetooth speaker", "office chair") that show the expected phrasing granularity, which the schema's terse 'Product words or the start of an HS code' does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: searches IFC's Indian import duty database for HS codes, with two concrete input modes and the result shape (up to 10 matching 8-digit codes). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts itself with the sibling lookup_hs_code, which is the natural point of confusion for an agent choosing between them.

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 by enumerating the two acceptable query forms (product words such as "bluetooth speaker", or the leading digits of an HS code), which is genuine guidance on how to invoke it. However it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions and does not point to lookup_hs_code or estimate_landed_cost as alternatives, so routing is left to inference.

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