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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description goes well beyond that: it discloses that controlled items to unrestricted destinations return 'partial' and never 'clear', that tariff rates are never fabricated, and that it unifies OFAC, EU, and UK list data. No contradictions with 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 long, but the length is largely justified given the tool's complexity. It front-loads the most critical caveat (no product classification), then provides examples, usage boundaries, return-value breakdown, and operational details (cost/latency). Slight redundancy of the 'never fabricates' warning appears twice, but it is a safety-critical point.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description shoulders the burden of explaining return values—and it does, enumerating (a) through (e). It also lists covered lists/regions, states cost and latency, and provides examples. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool or interpret its results is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful clarifications beyond the schema: hs_code is echoed back and never derived (caller must supply the official code), product is used for tariff guidance, and parties are screened against the three named sanctions lists. The examples also demonstrate real parameter combinations.

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 ('screens') and resource ('DESTINATION and PARTIES'), and immediately clarifies what it does NOT do (does not classify the product). It distinguishes itself from similar export-control/sanctions tools by describing its middleman role and explicit non-classification limitation.

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?

Explains when to use it ('before any cross-border trade', 'pre-flight check before quoting, invoicing, or shipping internationally') and when not to use it (not a substitute for licensed review, not for authoritative tariff rates, not for domestic shipments). Includes concrete example user queries that map to invocations.

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