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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description still adds the valuable caveat that matches carry unresolved rates and that pagination requires identical arguments. It stops short of describing result shape or page-size behavior, which are covered elsewhere, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 dense sentences: purpose and scope first, then alternatives, then pagination mechanics. Each sentence carries distinct information and none restates the name or title.

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 and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to cover routing, the unresolved-rate caveat, and continuation semantics, and it does all three. An agent can call and resume this tool correctly from the description alone.

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; the description adds meaning by clarifying that the query accepts either commodity text or a code prefix and that the cursor must be replayed with unchanged arguments. The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Search') and resource ('published USITC descriptions or complete HTS code prefixes') plus ordering ('source order'), which is enough to distinguish it from usitc_browse_chapter and usitc_get_heading. The clause about flat published rows with unresolved rates further pins down what kind of result this is.

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 to two named alternatives with the condition that selects each: usitc_get_heading for legal ancestry and usitc_lookup_duty_rate for exact base rate columns. It also gives the continuation rule ('follow nextCursor with identical arguments'), leaving nothing to inference.

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