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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Checks' implies a read-only lookup, but nothing is said about authentication (a sibling provisions an API key), rate limits, whether results are point-in-time or cached, or how multiple restriction types are returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action and the categories of output, with no filler. It is slightly terse for a compliance-lookup tool but wastes nothing.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only check with no output schema, the description covers what is being evaluated. It still omits when to use it, how origin_country (default CN) affects results, and what the caller should expect back.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both taric_code and origin_country are already documented in the schema. The description adds domain context about what is checked but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Checks') and resource ('EU import restrictions, document codes, compliance directives'), with concrete examples (CE, REACH, CBAM, CHED). It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like resolve_cbam_and_antidumping, which overlaps on the CBAM topic.

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?

There is no guidance on when to run this check versus calculate_customs_duties or resolve_cbam_and_antidumping, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. needing a resolved TARIC code first). Usage is only implied by the domain wording.

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