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 by structured data. The description adds useful substance beyond that by specifying the returned content (inspections, licences, legal documents with force status), but says nothing about invalid-code handling, coverage limits, or rate/auth constraints.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope in the first clause, followed by the return contents. The Vietnamese sentence is a near-verbatim translation rather than new information, which pads length slightly, but the whole definition remains compact.

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 no output schema, the description sensibly enumerates the returned categories and their force-status dimension. For a single-parameter read-only lookup that is close to sufficient; only edge cases (invalid or non-existent codes, chapter coverage) are unaddressed.

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 single property 'maHs' is an undocumented string, so the description carries the semantic burden. It does so by stating the required format ('8-digit HS code'), which is the critical detail the schema omits, though it stops short of examples or leading-zero guidance.

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 (looks up) and resource (Vietnam import procedures) scoped to an 8-digit HS code, and enumerates what is returned: specialized inspections, licences, and governing legal documents with force status. This clearly separates it from domain siblings like tra_thue (tax), tra_cay_hs, and tim_ma_hs, though it never names an alternative.

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 phrase 'for an 8-digit HS code' implies the precondition for calling it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to siblings such as tra_thue for tax rates or tim_ma_hs when the code itself is unknown. An agent must infer the workflow from the domain wording alone.

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