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

Annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior; the description adds important behavioral context beyond them, including the data source, data vintage (year), granularity limits, excluded charges, pricing per successful call, payment networks, and that failed calls are not charged.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded: resource and data source first, then returned fields, scope limits, alternative reporter, and pricing. Every sentence carries actionable information for an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain return formatting. It covers source, fields, granularity, exclusions, reporter flexibility, default behavior, and payment terms, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description still adds a critical semantic caveat that the HS code must be HS-6 rather than the 8/10-digit China customs line, and it reinforces the optional reporter default semantics.

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 resource (China's applied import tariff), granularity (6-digit HS code), and data source (World Bank WITS/UNCTAD TRAINS). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as logistics_japan_customs_tariff, logistics_uk_trade_tariff, logistics_hs_code_classifier, and logistics_customs_duty_calc.

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?

Gives clear scope and exclusions: HS-6 level, not 8/10-digit China customs lines, and excludes VAT, consumption tax, and retaliatory surcharges. It also states another reporter can be selected, but does not explicitly route the agent to sibling country-specific tariff tools or duty calculators.

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