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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, the description adds substantial context beyond them: it explains the output evidence labels, mentions sources, clarifies input media limitations, and notes the image field is disabled due to an internal host block. It does not explain why the operation is not read-only (e.g., side effects) or detail any rate limits.

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 front-loaded with purpose and return structure, and the Vietnamese portion adds non-redundant constraints (no HS code, no e-commerce page reading, unused image field) rather than merely repeating the English. It is somewhat longer than minimal due to bilingual phrasing, but every part contributes specific 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape (attribute frame, evidence label, sources). It also covers input constraints and operational limitations. It does not specify failure behavior (e.g., no match found) or source selection logic, which are minor gaps for a tool of this 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by mapping the five parameters: tenHang (name), model, thuongHieu (brand), moTa (short description), and explicitly stating that anhUrl (image) is currently unused. It falls short of detailing format constraints, precedence, or examples, but covers all parameter roles adequately.

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 ('Identifies') and resource ('a product from a text description'), and specifies the exact output ('attribute frame ... with evidence label HYPOTHESIS / CORROBORATED / VERIFIED and sources'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating 'KHÔNG trả mã HS' (does not return HS code), which separates it from HS-code lookup/classification siblings.

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 gives clear context: input is text (name, model, brand, short description), it does not read e-commerce platform pages, and the image field is currently unused. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for HS code queries or state a preferred ordering relative to them, leaving the 'instead of' mapping implicit.

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