HSN Classifier

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure ({best, alternatives[], query, matched_tokens[]}) and the fallback behavior (best may be null). It does not mention side effects or error conditions, but for a classification tool this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return structure, no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple one-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers purpose, return structure, and edge case behavior. Missing explicit comparison with sibling tools and error handling, but overall complete enough.

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% with a clear description of the 'name' parameter. The description adds context about classification into HSN codes, but does not provide additional value beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 the verb (classify), resource (product name into HSN code), and method (keyword scoring). It distinguishes from sibling tools (lookup_hsn and search_hsn) by focusing on classification of product names.

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 implies usage when a product name needs an HSN code, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. The 'best-effort' note provides some behavioral guidance but not comparative.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses truncation (8-digit truncated to 6 then 4) and error behavior (throws if no match), which adds value 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?

Two concise sentences that front-load purpose and include all key behaviors. No redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description lists return fields (code, description, gst_rate?) and covers error handling. For a single-parameter tool, this is thorough and includes edge cases (truncation, throwing).

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% (param already described in schema). The description provides an example ('code, e.g. '1006' (rice)') which adds meaning, but does not significantly expand on the schema's description. Baseline 3 with minor improvement.

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 the tool looks up an HSN code and specifies the valid digit lengths (4,6,8). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (classify_product, search_hsn), but the name and context imply direct lookup by code.

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 explains acceptable input formats and truncation behavior but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., 'Use this to get details for a specific code, not to search or classify').

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosures. It explains the return behavior (ranked matches with configurable limit), and mentions default/max values. However, it does not state that the tool is read-only or describe potential side effects, which are minimal for a search tool. The disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 exceptionally concise with two front-loaded sentences: the first defines the action and behavior, the second provides usage guidance. No information is redundant or irrelevant.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and parameter behavior. However, it omits the structure of returned matches (e.g., whether HSN code and description are included). A brief note on output format would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for both `query` and `limit`. The description reinforces the `limit` behavior and clarifies the search scope ('across HSN descriptions'), but adds limited semantic value beyond the schema. It does not introduce new parameter meaning.

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 the tool performs free-text keyword search across HSN descriptions, with specific details on result limits. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly advising use when a product name (not code) is available, making purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear 'when to use' directive: 'Use this when you have a product name but not a code.' This implies the alternative (lookup_hsn) for codes, but does not explicitly exclude other contexts or list alternative tool names. It is useful but lacks full coverage of when-not-to-use.

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