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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so responsibly: it discloses the data source, the exact scope of what is returned, the caveat that dates are only included where the schedule states them, and the tool's central limitation regarding HTS8 membership. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph, but every clause earns its place — scope, source, parameters, rate values, and limitations are all packed in without filler. It could be split into shorter sentences for readability, but it is not bloated.

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 three-parameter reference tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns (rates, defining notes, effective dates) and what it deliberately does not return (HTS8-level assertions). Combined with 100% parameter schema coverage, an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it doesn't mention how multiple optional filters might interact.

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 the schema already documents note, heading, and rate_pct. The description adds some interpretive context, such as the possible rate values and the meaning of note 20 vs 31, but it mostly restates the purpose rather than adding substantial parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 exactly what the tool provides: the Section 301 China additional-duty ladder from the USITC HTS export, mapping 9903.88/9903.91 headings to rate additions, defining U.S. notes, and effective dates where stated. It also explicitly differentiates itself from tools that assert HTS8-level list membership, so an agent can tell its scope apart from sibling tools.

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?

The description clearly frames when to use this tool: when you need possible Section 301 rates and where coverage is defined. It also provides a clear exclusion — it never asserts that a particular HTS8 code is on a list — so an agent knows not to use it for code-level list membership. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives explicitly, but the usage boundary is strong.

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