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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts — results come 'with sources' and the tool is 'Free' — but says nothing about result shape, latency, or data vintage.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the core subject (CN/HS code scope) is front-loaded. The noun-clause phrasing ('Whether a CN or HS code is...') is slightly indirect for a tool description but wastes no words.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description enumerates what the agent will learn — in-scope status, commodity, applicability dates, sources — which is the right level of return-value signaling. Only the absence of usage/routing context keeps it short of full completeness.

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% for the single 'cn' parameter, so the schema already specifies format (4-8 digits, example 0901). The description only echoes that CN or HS codes are accepted, adding no syntax or validation detail beyond the schema; 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 names the specific resource (a CN/HS code) and the specific determination (EUDR scope, commodity classification, applicability timing, sources). It is clearly a lookup/check tool rather than a listing tool, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling eudr_products.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you have a CN/HS code and need its EUDR status. There is no statement of when not to use it, no prerequisites, and no routing guidance relative to eudr_products or the cbam_* siblings.

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