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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well. It discloses non-binding guidance status, mandatory expert escalation for high-risk topics such as Russia/sanctions and dual-use, and a real monetary cost paid via x402. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to know but cannot infer from the schema or annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, input/output, use case, escalation rule, non-binding disclaimer, and cost. The core purpose is front-loaded and the tool's unique constraints are stated without fluff. It is longer than average but only because it covers more necessary ground.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is unusually complete. It covers what results to expect, how to structure queries, what will not be answered autonomously, that the output is non-binding guidance, and that each call costs money. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and warn users appropriately.

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 concrete examples for q ('drone with camera', '8525', 'export to Russia') and explains that q can be a product, HS code, or country. This meaningfully enriches the schema's already decent parameter description, though lang 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?

The description names a specific resource (EU import/export restrictions) and a clear verb (screen/check), enumerating concrete outputs: prohibitions, licence requirements, sanctions exposure, and dual-use flags. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like classify_product or get_tariff, which cover classification and tariff data rather than restriction screening.

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 a concrete use case: 'Use it to check whether goods can legally move before you ship.' This gives clear context for when the tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the restriction-focused scope plus the escalating-never-answer rule provides enough guidance for an agent to route appropriately.

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