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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the reliability limit of the output (suggestions, not rulings) and what the response contains (candidate codes with chapter/heading text). It does not mention the limit parameter's behavior on result volume.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and receiving a decisive caveat at the end. No filler, every clause carries 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 search with no output schema, the description covers inputs, return shape, and the key reliability caveat. The only gap is the undocumented limit parameter, which an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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 only 50%: query is documented in the schema while limit is not. The description restates and reinforces the two query forms, adding little beyond the schema example, and says nothing about what limit controls or its default of 8.

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 (HS 2022 nomenclature) with explicit scope (6-digit international level) and input modes (English description or code prefix). The sibling tools are unrelated shipment/document operations, so no differentiation is needed and none is missing.

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?

Explains the two acceptable query forms and, importantly, that results are suggestions to confirm in the destination tariff rather than rulings — a real usage caveat. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over an alternative lookup, but no relevant alternative exists among the siblings.

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