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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that duties computed are 'definitive' (a meaningful legal distinction) but says nothing about authentication (an api_key parameter exists), whether results are binding/estimates, rate limits, or failure behavior for unlisted codes.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading both outputs (duties and CBAM obligations) before the material scope. Nothing is repeated from the schema or wasted on preamble.

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?

This is a 5-parameter financial computation tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what comes back (per-line duty amounts, CBAM cost breakdown, currency, totals). It instead stops at stating the domain, leaving the agent unable to anticipate the response or the auth flow.

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% (5/5 parameters documented, including the api_key and origin_country default), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as accepted code formats or what omitting weight_kg does for CBAM calculation, so the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb (computes) and two concrete resources (EU anti-dumping duties and CBAM carbon financial obligations), plus the covered commodity scope (steel, aluminium, sensitive imports). An agent can tell this apart from the generic 'calculate_customs_duties' sibling by domain, though it never explicitly names or contrasts that sibling.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says when this tool should be chosen over calculate_customs_duties or check_import_restrictions, nor any preconditions (valid TARIC code, origin country required). Usage must be inferred entirely from the commodity scope in the sentence.

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