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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait the schema cannot express — the Pro API key requirement — and clarifies results are customer-scoped (no cross-account leakage). However it omits ordering, pagination behavior implied by before/before_id, and what a change record contains.

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 with the access constraint front-loaded, which is the right ordering for a gated endpoint. No wasted words, though the second sentence could have carried slightly more load given the description's brevity.

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?

Six parameters at 17% schema coverage with no annotations and no output schema is a lot of unaddressed surface. An agent still cannot determine how to page through results or what a "tariff change" record looks like, so the definition is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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 only 17% (only origin documented), so the description must compensate and largely does not. "Workflow and classification filters" loosely maps to acknowledged and hts, but limit, before, and before_id — the cursoring pair — receive no explanation anywhere, leaving an agent guessing at pagination semantics.

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?

"List customer-scoped tariff changes" gives a specific verb plus resource and adds a scope qualifier that separates it from sibling reads like search_tariffs or lookup_tariff. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead, but the resource itself is unambiguous.

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 states an access prerequisite (Pro API key) but never says when to call this versus search_tariffs or lookup_tariff, nor when to exclude oneself. The phrase "optional workflow and classification filters" hints at filtering but gives no selection criteria.

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