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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool searches two distinct catalogues, which is useful behavioral context, and the verb 'Search' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, how results from the two catalogues are combined, or any edge-case behavior.

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 two tight sentences with the core function front-loaded and usage details following. Every clause carries useful information, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description provides the essential information for selecting and invoking a read-style search tool, and an output schema exists to define the return shape. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings and does not clarify how the two-catalogue search behaves, leaving some selection and expectation-setting burden on the agent.

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 meaningfully defines the keyword parameter by specifying acceptable inputs (HS code, ECCN code, or technical description, with the example 1C351), but it does not mention the limit parameter at all. The limit parameter is standard and has a schema default, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource ('dual-use items & technologies'), then further names the two underlying datasets: the 2026 HS-based license catalogue and the ECCN-coded export control list. This level of specificity clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_tariff or query_prohibited, even without explicitly naming them.

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 input-format guidance ('Use HS code, ECCN code (e.g. 1C351), or technical description') but does not state when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. An agent must infer selection entirely from the 'dual-use' wording in the purpose statement.

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