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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds useful behavioral details: it searches all 29,845 lines of the current US tariff schedule with full hierarchy, reports the count of CBP classification rulings per candidate as a confidence signal, and notes no API key is required. This goes beyond the annotation baseline, though it omits details like whether results are ordered or what the exact output structure is.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, search scope and confidence signal, examples, and authentication requirement. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp what the tool does.

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 there is no output schema, the description partially covers return values by mentioning it reports the number of CBP rulings per candidate. It also provides scope and confidence signals. It doesn't specify the full output structure (e.g., code, description, rulings count as fields), but the tool is simple enough that this is mostly adequate. Sibling tools exist, but the description positions this as the first step, which helps fit the broader context.

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 parameters are already well-documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description boosts understanding by providing concrete product description examples ('electric standing desk', 'lithium battery pack') and explains the confidence signal (rulings count) that relates to the 'limit' parameter. However, it doesn't add new syntax or format details 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: finding an HS/HTS code from a plain-language product description. It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('HS/HTS code'), and differentiates itself from siblings by positioning as 'the entry point to every tariff question' with a search across the entire US tariff schedule.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—whenever a user needs an HS code from a natural language product description. It gives examples of appropriate queries and notes this is the 'entry point' for tariff questions, implying it should be used before more specialized tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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