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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral caveats: coverage may be partial or provisional and the output is not a binding customs result, which tells the agent how much to trust the result.

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 short clauses, deprecation notice front-loaded ahead of the residual use case, with no filler. Every sentence (replacement target, legacy condition, trust caveat) carries information the agent needs.

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?

For a deprecated 6-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential routing, the fallback condition, and the trust caveat. It could note that EU destinations are the supported scope (which only appears in the schema), but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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% across all 18 parameters, so every field (including optional ones like incoterm, known_hs_code, shipping_mode) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so the 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?

The description identifies the tool as the legacy beta 'EU import assessment' and leads with its deprecated status, so an agent immediately understands what it is and that it is superseded. It stops short of a crisp verb+resource statement of what the assessment computes, but the identity and scope are unambiguous.

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?

It names the replacement explicitly ('use factrail_assess instead') and states the one condition under which this tool is still correct: an older integration expecting the legacy beta format. Both the when-not (new work) and the when (legacy caller) are covered.

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