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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine scope context by stating the dataset has no duty rates and no sub-chapter tariff lines. It does not mention the country_not_available failure mode, but the schema already documents that.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope of the return value, followed by the sequencing hint and the dataset boundary. No filler or redundancy.

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 burden of describing returns, and it does so adequately (two-digit chapter codes plus titles). The sequencing dependency and data-boundary note round out the picture, though nothing is said about result size or pagination.

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%, so all three parameters (lang, country, section) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the section example ("XVI"), adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (chapters of a customs tariff section), and clarifies the returned granularity as two-digit codes with titles. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling customs_tariff_sections, which operates one level up.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: "Use it after customs_tariff_sections," which is a concrete sequencing instruction. It also implicitly excludes duty-rate and tariff-line lookups by stating the dataset holds neither, though it does not name a direct alternative for those needs.

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