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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the operation is a search and adds the behavioral nuance 'all batches,' but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, result limits, pagination, or any potential side effects. The query nature makes major side effects unlikely, but the disclosure is thin.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, the scope, and the search method efficiently, so every word 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 simplicity of the tool (two parameters, one required) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core calling context: what to search, the catalogue scope, and the accepted key types. It does not address limit semantics or explicitly route around sibling tools, but those are relatively minor gaps for a simple query tool.

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 adds meaningful semantics for the keyword parameter by saying searches can be by keyword or HS code, but it says nothing about the limit parameter, whose meaning is only inferable from its title and default value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('prohibited import/export goods catalogues'), and it adds the scope 'all batches.' The word 'prohibited' clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like query_dualuse, query_any, and query_tariff.

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 domain is implied by 'prohibited' but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings, no exclusion conditions, and no mention of the alternative query tools. An agent must infer the intended use case from the resource name rather than being told.

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