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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real scope context — no duty rates, nothing below chapter level — which prevents an agent from over-asking this dataset, though it does not restate the country_not_available failure mode documented in the schema.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: one defines the resource and its fields, one gives the usage context, one states the dataset limits. The most useful routing information is front-loaded.

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 compensates by enumerating what each record contains (Roman numeral, title, chapter range). Combined with the annotated read-only profile and 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 lang and country are fully documented in the schema, including defaults and the country_not_available behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('List the sections of the Algerian customs tariff') with the exact payload stated (Roman numeral, title, chapter range). It positions the tool as the first level of the HS classification, which clearly separates it from the sibling customs_tariff_chapters.

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 says when to use it ('locate a family of products before listing the chapters of a section'), naming the downstream sibling step. It also draws the negative boundary by stating the dataset holds no duty rates and no tariff lines below chapter level, so the agent knows when this tool will not answer.

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