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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the algorithm (BM25 with heading-agreement boosting) and the return values (parent-chain description, duty rate, score-gap confidence). The disclaimer about not being a ruling adds behavioral context. However, it does not mention if the tool is stateless, idempotent, or any rate limits, but the provided details are sufficient for a classification tool.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main action and immediately followed by key details on method and return values. It is concise without extraneous information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but this is not a flaw.

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 sibling tools, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, method, return fields, and a disclaimer. However, it omits explanation of the options parameter (origin_hint, top_k) and the exact structure of the returned candidates. This forces the agent to infer or guess, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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?

The input schema includes two parameters (description and options) with constraints, but the description does not explain their semantics or usage beyond implying 'description' is the product text. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but fails to add meaning for the options object (e.g., top_k, origin_hint). This leaves the agent guessing about optional parameters.

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 verb (classify), resource (product description), and output (candidate codes), with additional detail on the retrieval method and returned fields. No sibling tools are given, so differentiation is not required.

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 explicitly notes that this is not a customs ruling and includes a disclaimer to verify with a licensed broker, indicating when not to use it as authoritative. It describes the deterministic retrieval method but does not mention specific alternatives or when to prefer them, which is acceptable given no sibling tools.

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