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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuine behavioral context the annotations lack: each line is labelled Fact/Inference/pending with dated sources, and the covered jurisdictions are enumerated. The reliability/provenance disclosure and the 'not regulatory advice' disclaimer are exactly the kind of extra context that earns credit above the annotation baseline.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and content scope, then the Fact/Inference provenance and the legal disclaimer. Dense but every clause carries information; the long jurisdiction list is the only mildly bulky element.

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 takes on the burden of describing returns, and it does so reasonably: labelled lines, dated sources, enumerated jurisdictions. For a two-param read-only lookup that is nearly complete; only the absence of explicit usage/routing guidance and any hint of data recency limits leaves a small gap.

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 both parameters are already documented ('Product id from list_products', destination examples). The description restates the same destination list but adds no syntax, format, casing, or fallback guidance for unknown values, so it neither compensates for a gap nor adds meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Plant-health market-access notes for a South African fruit to a destination') and enumerates the content an agent will get: entry eligibility, certificate/permit steps, protocol requirements, cold treatment. It is clearly distinct in domain from siblings like get_specs or get_season, though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, which holds it at a 4.

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?

Usage is implied by the product/destination framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. 'resolve product via list_products first'), and no routing away from alternatives such as get_specs or contact_route. The 'Information only; not regulatory advice' line is a caveat, not guidance on when to invoke.

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