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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds real value: it explains the three possible verdicts, notes that person_checks_first triggers human review before any price, and clarifies no record is written and it is not legal/customs advice. It stops short of timing or failure behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 the core verdict, then the outcome taxonomy, then scope caveats; each sentence earns its place. The verdict parenthetical is dense but informative, with only minor overlap between 'Records nothing' and the closing scope note.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and return values needn't be restated, the description covers scope, side effects, possible outcomes and the non-advice disclaimer, leaving nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it.

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% and the description only restates 'Input: the product description,' adding no format or syntactic detail beyond the schema's own hint about materials and batteries. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (checks whether goods can be shipped) plus the precise scope (China to US) and explicitly says it 'Records nothing,' which distinguishes it from the offer-generating sibling tools. An agent can tell this is a pre-shipment eligibility screen 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?

It implies usage by noting it 'applies the same goods screen as Plain Freight's offers,' which suggests calling it before generate_offer, but it never says when to use this versus estimate_price or generate_offer, nor any exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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