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

Given no annotations, the description effectively discloses behaviors: deterministic (BM25), heading-agreement boosting, and the inclusion of a disclaimer. It does not explicitly state read-only idempotency, but the operation is clearly a query with no side effects. The description adds value beyond the empty annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and method, the second provides output details and a crucial disclaimer. No redundancy or excessive detail.

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, no annotations, and only two parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose, algorithm, and output fields. However, parameter semantics are missing, which reduces completeness. For a query tool with this complexity, it is adequate but not excellent.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. While 'description' is obvious, 'options.top_k' and 'options.origin_hint' are not elaborated. The description mentions 'score-gap confidence' but doesn't link to parameters. This is a significant gap that could hinder correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Classify a product description into candidate HS/HTS10 tariff codes.' It specifies the retrieval method (deterministic BM25), the data source (USITC HTS schedule), and the output fields (parent-chain description, duty rate, score-gap confidence). The disclaimer distinguishes it from a customs ruling, clarifying its non-authoritative nature.

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 explains what the tool does and includes a disclaimer that it is not a customs ruling, implying verification is needed. It specifies the algorithm and data source, giving context for when to trust the results. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, but with no sibling tools, this is acceptable.

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