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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description still adds material context: cost is $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 across Base, Solana or Arc, and failed calls are not charged. It also caps expectations by framing the output as a factual summary rather than legal advice, which matters for a compliance-adjacent tool.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the opening clause, and the trailing sentences on the optional check, disclaimer and pricing each carry unique information. The middle sentence is a long run-on enumerating responsibilities, which is dense but not padded.

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 an output schema present, return-value shape need not be described; what remains is fully covered — default behavior with no parameters, what the optional check flags, scope disclaimers, and the payment/charge model. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by spelling out all eleven accepted term values (EXW, FCA, CPT, CIP, DAP, DPU, DDP, FAS, FOB, CFR, CIF) that the schema only illustrates with 'e.g. FOB', and by clarifying that the mode field drives a sea-only fit check rather than a filter.

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 states a specific resource (Incoterms 2020 responsibility matrix) and the exact dimensions returned: transport-mode fit, risk transfer point, and seller/buyer allocation for carriage, loading, clearance, duties, unloading and insurance. The enumerated rule list (EXW through CIF) makes it unmistakable versus siblings like logistics_customs_duty_calc or logistics_hs_code_classifier.

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 states when to use the optional check (a sea-only rule applied to containers or non-sea transport) and defines the default behavior (all 11 rules when term is omitted). It also sets a boundary on scope ('not the ICC rule text or legal advice'), though it names no alternative sibling tool for those needs.

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