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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the useful behavioral fact that the tool returns a hierarchical path plus the official designation rather than a flat match, but it omits whether this is a read-only lookup, whether it requires auth, and error behavior for invalid 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and scope come first. It is terse enough that nothing is wasted, though there is no room for the usage details that are missing.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, so the description must sketch the return shape. It names the two returns (hierarchy, official designation) but gives no structure for them, and with no annotations there is nothing else covering behavior.

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 schema already documents both the hs_code and its code alias. The description's mention of 'code SH6 ou TARIC' narrows the accepted value types slightly but adds no format, syntax, or precedence guidance for the alias.

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?

States a specific verb (resolves) and two concrete outputs (hierarchical tree and official designation) for a specific resource (HS6 or TARIC code). It is distinguishable from siblings like search_customs_nomenclature or calculate_customs_duties, though it never names or contrasts with them explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the alternatives (search_customs_nomenclature, resolve_cbam_and_antidumping), nor any precondition or scenario guidance. Usage can only be inferred from the verb 'resolve'.

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