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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description complements these by clarifying this is a simulation (no side effects), listing the detailed cost breakdown outputs, and naming WTO TFA and US Census trade data as sources, giving agents a stronger sense of expected behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case, then inputs, outputs, and sources. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or filler.

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 and annotations are present, the description covers the essential context: purpose, inputs, outputs, and data sources. It does not explain optionality or async behavior, but these are captured in the input schema, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 low (14%), but the description names all six domain parameters in plain language, distinguishing current vs proposed tariff rates and tying them to landed-cost calculation. It omits units/currency, but the schema's min/max constraints and property names provide enough inference.

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 clearly states a specific action ('model how proposed tariff changes affect landed costs') with a defined resource (imported goods cost structure). It includes expected outputs and names input variables, making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling tools like tariff_arbitrage_finder.

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 establishes a clear use context ('As a COO, model how proposed tariff changes affect landed costs') and implies a decision-support scenario. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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