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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only names the search backend (FTS5) and the bilingual scope. It says nothing about matching semantics (stemming, partial words, ranking), result ordering, or how the default limit of 5 behaves.

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 no filler; scope (bilingual FR/EN, TARIC) comes first. The FTS5 detail is arguably implementation trivia, but it does not bloat the definition.

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?

A three-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only one documented parameter leaves the agent guessing about result shape, ranking, and pagination behavior. Given the missing structured coverage, the description should say considerably more.

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 33%; only 'query' is documented, and 'limit' is entirely unexplained in both schema and description. The FR/EN mention implicitly informs the 'lang' enum, but the description adds no syntax, matching, or count semantics beyond that.

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: textual search in the TARIC nomenclature. It is clearly distinguishable in kind from calculate_customs_duties or check_import_restrictions, but never names or contrasts with the closest sibling, resolve_hs_code, so an agent must infer which lookup path to take.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this for fuzzy/keyword lookups versus resolve_hs_code for exact code resolution, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent only learns what the tool is, not when to reach for it.

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