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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the query input modes and agreement coverage, but it does not explain matching behavior (e.g., partial HS codes, exact matches), how 'limit' affects results, or any other operational 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?

One front-loaded sentence states the action, resource, coverage, and input method with no filler. Every element 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?

For a two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate but leaves gaps: no guidance on HS code format or matching semantics, no use of limit, and no explicit sibling differentiation. Output shape is reasonably covered by the existence of an output schema.

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 prose must explain the parameters. It does explain 'keyword' as an HS code or product keyword, but 'limit' is never mentioned in the description; only the schema default (10) is visible.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a concrete resource ('FTA product-specific rules of origin'), a coverage list ('25 agreements incl. RCEP, ASEAN, Korea'), and the input modes ('HS code or product keyword'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as query_tariff or query_dualuse.

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 the tool is for looking up FTA origin rules by HS code or keyword, which gives some usage context. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or list exclusions, so an agent must infer the boundary between this and query_tariff.

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