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

The description reveals non-obvious behavior not captured by annotations: the product value is echoed back and never checked against export-control lists, and a controlled item to an unrestricted destination returns 'partial', never 'clear'. It also commits to never fabricating a tariff rate, clear status, or restricted status, which is valuable behavior disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and packs critical caveats into a compact paragraph. The all-caps emphasis and pricing note add noise but each clause contributes to accurate use.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description still hints at possible return statuses ('partial', 'clear') and explicitly disclaims fabrication of statuses/rates. It does not give a full output shape or error semantics, but it is sufficient for an agent to set expectations and invoke the tool.

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, but the description adds meaningful semantics by stating that the product parameter is only echoed and not classified or screened. This clarifies the role of the product argument beyond the schema's generic 'Product name or description'.

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 frames the tool as a cross-border screening service for destination country and parties, and explicitly states it does not classify the product or provide export-control clearance. This distinguishes it from export-control tools, though the phrasing 'cross-border screening' remains somewhat generic.

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?

It explains when not to rely on the tool ('Not an export-control clearance -- classify HS/ECCN yourself') and what it will never do, which guides selection. It does not name an alternative sibling tool such as screen_sanctions or check_compliance, but the context is clear enough.

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