SAMOS e-commerce

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld=false). The description adds genuinely new behavior: a heavy rate limit and a gating condition on when to fire. It says nothing about cost, latency, or failure modes, so not a 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the purpose ahead of the input requirement and the rate-limit caveat.

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 estimation tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the definition covers scope, inputs, and invocation constraints. The only thin spot is that the shape of the returned estimate is unspecified, though nothing suggests it is complex.

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%, so all nine parameters are already documented with examples and defaults. The description only restates the HS-code-or-description either/or, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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 ('Estimate the import duties and taxes'), scopes it ('one item shipped from the UK with SAMOS'), and the sibling estimate_shipping_price makes the duties-vs-shipping distinction obvious.

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 an explicit invocation condition ('only call when the user asks for a duties/tax estimate') plus the operational reason (heavy rate limiting), which is exactly the guidance an agent needs. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, so it falls just short of 5.

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/openWorld=false/no destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds real behavioral constraints (20 kg and 100x43x43 cm caps) and discloses the returned currency, which the annotations do not. It omits whether overweight/oversize input errors or how pricing is derived, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the core operation and modes come first, then the hard limits. Every clause carries usable information.

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 a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies currency and mode semantics that help interpret the result. Minor gap: it advertises dimension limits while the schema exposes no dimension parameter, which could make an agent think dimensions are in scope.

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 country format, weight range, and the type enum. The description echoes the direction logic and the 20 kg ceiling but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (estimate), resource (SAMOS shipping price), currency (GBP), and both directional modes (UK→country, country→UK). This is clearly distinguishable from track_parcel, list_destinations, estimate_duties, and search_help, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 explains the two modes and their direction semantics, which implies when each applies, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and never points to estimate_duties for customs costs or list_destinations for valid country values.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the scope constraint ('from the UK') and the shape of the returned data, which is modest value beyond the annotations but no further behavioral detail (ordering, completeness of the list, freshness).

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 scope qualifier ('from the UK') and returned fields are packed in without redundancy.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does state the returned fields (ISO codes, return support). It is complete for such a simple tool, though it says nothing about whether the list is exhaustive or ordered.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies per the rules; no parameter semantics are 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?

The description gives a specific verb (list) and resource (countries SAMOS ships to from the UK), plus the exact fields returned (ISO codes, return support). That is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools (estimate_duties, estimate_shipping_price, search_help, track_parcel), though the resource is naturally distinct.

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 agent infers this is a reference lookup to run before quoting or validating a destination. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so it sits at the minimum-viable level rather than giving real 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, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it "Returns the best matching questions and answers," which usefully reveals the return shape in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about match quality, coverage limits, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return behavior second. Every phrase earns its place by scoping the searchable content.

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 FAQ lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns (matching Q&A pairs). It is nearly complete; only minor behavioral details like result count or no-match handling are absent.

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 single 'query' parameter is fully documented with an example in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's topic enumeration (shipping, customs, IOSS, labels, returns, accounts) marginally helps an agent choose query terms but adds no syntax or format guidance 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?

States a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("SAMOS help centre (FAQs)") and enumerates the topics covered (shipping, customs, IOSS, labels, returns, accounts). This clearly separates it from the action-oriented siblings (estimate_duties, estimate_shipping_price, list_destinations, track_parcel), which compute or fetch operational data rather than answer questions.

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 agent can infer this is for answering user questions, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when NOT to reach for it, and no routing to sibling tools (e.g., use estimate_duties instead when the user wants a computed figure). Adequate but leaves routing 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 (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it discloses the return shape (tracking events newest first) and the presence of a local_carrier_tracking_url with its meaning. It stops short of noting failure modes such as an unknown or not-yet-shipped tracking number.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and lookup key, then the return content, then the guidance. Every sentence adds information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 correctly assumes the burden of describing returns and does so (events newest first, carrier link). It is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool, with only error/empty-result behavior left unspecified.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, including an example format (SAM12345678), so the schema carries the semantics. The description confirms the lookup is by tracking number but adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (track) and resource (SAMOS parcel) plus the lookup key (tracking number). No sibling tool does tracking, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from estimate_duties, estimate_shipping_price, list_destinations, and search_help.

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 an explicit usage instruction for the returned link ('Share that link when the user wants more delivery detail'), which is genuinely helpful routing guidance for output consumption. However, it says nothing about when to select this tool versus the pricing/destination siblings, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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