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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the returned content is chapter and heading notes rather than a code or rate, which is useful context, but says nothing about what happens with an invalid or incomplete HS code, or the size/shape of the returned text.

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 core statement is front-loaded and short, but the second sentence is a verbatim Vietnamese restatement of the first, which duplicates content rather than adding it. For a bilingual audience this may be intentional, yet it doubles length without new 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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the tool is simple enough that the description is close to sufficient. However, an agent still lacks guidance on what the notes look like, how large they are, and what a failed lookup returns.

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% and the only documentation for maHs is a regex pattern. The description does identify the parameter's meaning ('for an HS code' / 'theo mã HS'), partially compensating, but does not clarify accepted formats, chapter-level vs heading-level codes, or whether dots/dashes are required.

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: returns chapter and heading notes of the Vietnam tariff nomenclature for an HS code. This implicitly separates it from siblings like tim_ma_hs (code lookup) or tra_thue (duty rates), but never names an alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as tra_cay_hs or tra_thue. The agent must infer from the noun phrase alone that this is the tool for explanatory notes attached to a chapter/heading.

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