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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the ranked result shape and that results are raw candidates, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, lacks side effects, or describe error/timeout behavior. It adds some useful context but not deep behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is two short paragraphs: first the core purpose, then the return shape and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

Given the rich schema (100% parameter coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for tool selection and invocation. It also addresses the key ambiguity among siblings by directing the agent to resolve_product_code for a helper path. No important usage aspect is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the notion of searching by keyword/code and returning ranked candidates. Since the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly, this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') and names the exact resources (Combined Nomenclature, PRODCOM) plus the result shape. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling resolve_product_code by clarifying which is for a one-call helper vs. this raw candidate list.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to prefer resolve_product_code and when to use this tool directly ('if you specifically want the raw ranked candidate list'). This is clear when/when-not guidance with a named alternative.

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