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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that the tool is FREE, that it reports current availability ('available right now'), and that all answers are reviewed by a licensed customs professional. It does not mention rate limits or exact response format, but for a zero-parameter discovery tool these are not significant omissions.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important signal ('FREE') and the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the category list is specific, the 'Call this FIRST' instruction is actionable, and the expert-review note reinforces trust without padding.

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 zero-parameter catalog tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is complete: it names the categories, the per-category data returned (count, tool, price, languages), the intended usage order, and the verification quality. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the reason for doing so.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately explains what the tool returns without needing to document parameters, and it adds useful semantic framing about the catalog being the entry point to paid tools.

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 this is a directory of everything CustomsWise can answer, with a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise list of what is returned per category: count of verified entries, serving tool, price, and supported languages. This fully distinguishes it from the sibling tools like get_tariff or classify_product, which are the paid tools it catalogs.

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 explicitly says 'Call this FIRST to discover the paid tools and confirm verified content exists before spending,' which gives a clear entry-point use case and frames the paid tools as the next step. It does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of full exclusion guidance.

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