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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only what is computed (hierarchy + official designation). It says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what occurs on an invalid/unknown code, error behavior, or the shape/size of the returned tree.

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 the core action first and the code-format constraint second. No filler or redundancy, though the brevity is partly why behavioral context is thin.

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 one-parameter read tool this is adequate at the purpose level, but with no annotations and no output schema the description leaves the return structure (the hierarchy and designation format) and error handling undescribed, which an agent would want before invoking.

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% and the single parameter already documents the 6/10-digit formats with examples. The description's "de 6 à 10 chiffres" merely restates the schema, so it adds no meaning beyond it; 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?

States a specific verb ("Résout") and resource ("l'arborescence hiérarchique et la désignation officielle") plus the accepted code formats (SH6/TARIC, 6-10 digits). The verb contrast with the sibling search_customs_nomenclature is implied but not named explicitly, so it is clear without being maximally distinguishing.

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?

The description implies you should use this when you already hold a specific code to resolve, as opposed to the sibling's search behavior, but it never states when to prefer this over search_customs_nomenclature or what happens if the code is unknown. Usage is only inferable from the verb and the code-format constraint.

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