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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it is free and does not consume a search credit, and it discloses what the response contains (sourced rules plus factory certificates/test reports). It doesn't say anything about coverage limits or staleness of the regulatory data, which is the main remaining unknown for a compliance tool.

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 dense sentence plus a short cost note, front-loaded with the scope. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical "(Amazon)" and the certificate clause make it slightly run-on.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back — and it does, naming sources and certificate/test-report artifacts. The one gap is the input format for 'product', which is unspecified in both schema and 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?

There is one required parameter, 'product', with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — and it only repeats "product" in prose without saying whether it expects a plain name, a category, an HS code, or a description. An agent has to guess the accepted granularity, which materially affects result quality.

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-and-resource pair: what a US seller must check before importing and selling a product. The enumeration of contents (laws, marketplace/Amazon rules, buyer requests) plus deliverables (sources, certificates, test reports) makes it unmistakable against siblings like price_bands or search_listings.

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?

"Before importing and selling a product" gives a clear trigger context, and "does not spend a search" hints at when to prefer this over the search-family siblings. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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