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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose the tri-state verdict and that reasons are returned (lithium, alcohol, destination lists), plus a scope disclaimer that this is not customs clearance, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about whether the result is advisory vs authoritative, whether optional inputs change the verdict, or what the response looks like.

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 plus a short scope disclaimer, with the outcome taxonomy front-loaded. There is no filler. It is arguably terse given the tool's surface area, but nothing present is wasted.

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 nine-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much open: how the optional inputs (weight, price, mains voltage, shipping method) influence the verdict, what 'conditional' means operationally, and how the returned reasons are structured. The scope disclaimer is helpful but does not fill these gaps.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It hints at three of the nine parameters — lithium, alcohol (alcohol_abv), and destination (country) — by naming them as reason categories, but weight_g, price_jpy, mains_voltage, shipping_method, category, and lang remain semantically unexplained in both schema and prose.

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 action and resource ('Export check') and enumerates the outcome space (allowed, conditional, blocked) with the reason categories that drive it, which lets an agent distinguish it from cost/proxy siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling tool explicitly, so the differentiation from estimate_landed_cost is only implied by 'Not a customs clearance'.

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: an 'Export check' logically precedes shipping, and the closing clause excludes customs-clearance use. There is no explicit when-to-use trigger, no prerequisite (e.g., must the item originate in Japan?), and no named alternative for the adjacent questions an agent might have.

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