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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It discloses the $0.25 paid call via x402/HTTP 402, states that it is guidance only and not binding advice, explains output contents, and notes expert escalation for complex cases. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is slight redundancy between 'Expert-verified' and 'reviewed by a licensed customs professional,' but each sentence contributes operational or legal context such as payment, non-binding nature, and escalation.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing what is returned: purpose, eligibility conditions, required documents, and practical notes. It also covers cost, language, scope, and escalation. The main gap is that the exact response format/structure is not described.

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%; both 'q' and 'lang' already have clear descriptions and examples in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema provides, so 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 clearly identifies a specific verb+resource: it returns expert-verified explanations of EU special customs procedures and enumerates the covered regimes (inward processing, outward processing, returned goods relief, temporary admission). It is clearly distinct from sibling tariff/origin/classification tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'Use it to understand how to suspend or reclaim duty/VAT when goods are processed, repaired or temporarily moved across the EU border.' It also flags that complex regime structuring is escalated, but it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative siblings.

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