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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool only provides estimates, not official customs quotes, and exposes underlying assumptions and risk factors such as the 12% HS-code misclassification rate and 18-month retroactive exposure. This gives the agent realistic expectations about output reliability.

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 dense sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and method, then gives usage timing, then lists inputs and the key limitation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all critical external context: geographic scope, cost components, calculator assumptions, units, shipping modes, when to use it, and the estimate-only caveat. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when to invoke it and how to supply inputs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so meaningfully by specifying units for weight (kg), dimensions (cm), goods value (USD), and shipping mode options (air/sea). It also clarifies the volumetric weight calculation basis (air /6000). It doesn't describe each parameter individually, but the names plus unit hints are sufficient for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and object — 'Calculate true landed cost' — and scopes it to China-to-US/EU imports with specific cost components (volumetric weight, port charges, customs duty risk). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling supplier audit and payment verification tools, which address different tasks entirely.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use before budgeting any import order'. It also provides a clear limitation: 'Estimates only, not a customs quote', which functions as a when-not-to-use boundary. This is strong usage guidance for an agent deciding between this and unrelated sibling tools.

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