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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, open-world safety profile, and the description adds substantial non-redundant context: unmet approvals cause goods to be held or returned, multiple approving agencies may exist with any one sufficient, conditions are quoted in authoritative Korean, tariff rates are included, and data provenance is named. This is exactly the beyond-schema context the dimension rewards.

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?

Front-loads what it returns and what happens when approvals are unmet, then layers caveats and provenance. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the final free-test-code sentence is a slight tack-on but still useful for trial invocation.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well, enumerating statutes, agencies, certificates, quoted conditions, and tariff rates. It also sets expectations about Korean-language output and the fact-lookup limitation, leaving no significant gap for a two-parameter read-only tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 6-digit truncation behavior and the import/export enum. The description only echoes the 10-digit HS code usage and says nothing about the direction parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (check requirements) and resource (Korean customs clearance requirements) scoped by 10-digit HS code. Distinguishes itself from the batch sibling by being a single-code fact lookup, and the 'not a legal customs determination' line clarifies what the tool does not do.

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?

Explains the trigger condition (you have a product's HS code and need to know clearance requirements) and gives a free test code plus the disclaimer that conditions are not evaluated against your product. It does not explicitly name the batch sibling as the alternative for multiple codes, so 4 rather than 5.

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