tariff.watch

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or scope beyond 'published since a date'. The agent gets no hints on edge cases or limitations.

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?

Single sentence with no redundant words, but could be improved by separating parameter clarifications or using bullet points. Still efficient.

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 simple tool with 2 optional params and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose but omits details like return format, pagination defaults, and behavior when 'since' is omitted. Adequate but not robust.

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 0%. The description adds meaning to the 'since' parameter ('published since a date') but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide format details for 'since'. Baseline for low coverage is 4, but compensation is partial.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resources 'effective dates, comment deadlines, and hearings' from 'trade actions', distinguishing it from siblings like 'tariffs_get_source' and 'tariffs_list_changes'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it only implies usage for getting dates but lacks when-not or alternative suggestions.

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

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

No annotations provided and the description only states the basic action; it does not disclose behavior like error handling, data recency, or potential side effects. For a simple lookup this may suffice, but it lacks depth.

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?

One sentence front-loads the key information; it is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could include more details without losing clarity.

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 tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. However, it lacks any usage context or error handling description, leaving slight gaps for an agent.

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?

The description adds value by explaining that the tool retrieves a record 'by Federal Register document number', which is not present in the schema (0% coverage). However, no additional details on format or constraints are given.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'trade-action source record', and the unique identifier 'Federal Register document number', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like tariffs_effective_dates and tariffs_list_changes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; lacks context such as prerequisite conditions or scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is solely responsible for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'list changes', implying a read operation, but fails to describe pagination (limit parameter), date filtering (since), ordering, or whether results are incremental or complete. The agent lacks insight into core behavior.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient but at the expense of necessary details. It front-loads the main action but omits parameter explanation and behavioral notes.

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 tool has two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain return format, the meaning of 'source-linked', or how to effectively use the parameters. The agent cannot fully utilize the tool based on this description.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description does not compensate: it does not mention 'limit' (controls result count) or 'since' (filters by date). The agent cannot infer parameter meaning from the default values alone.

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 clearly states it lists changes related to tariffs, customs, and trade actions, using the verb 'list' with a specific resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools 'tariffs_effective_dates' and 'tariffs_get_source', leaving ambiguity about when each tool is appropriate.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description gives no context about scenario-specific usage, prerequisites, or exclusions, forcing the agent to guess based solely on names.

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