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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing that unit cost and effective duty rate are computed:true, that Section 232 and other additional duties are included in calculated duty, and that domestic freight and customs clearance fees are excluded — genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Purpose and inclusions/exclusions are front-loaded and every clause adds substance (duty inclusions, computed flags, exclusions). It is, however, a single dense run-on sentence rendered twice (Japanese and English), which lengthens the payload without adding new 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?

With an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and it covers scope, cost components, computed fields and exclusions for a five-parameter tool. The main missing piece is guidance on when to choose this import-cost source over the sibling domestic price tools.

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 100%, so each parameter (hs, limit, query, country, top_countries) is already documented, including the note that top_countries is ignored when country is given. The description adds only the general mention of 'top partner countries or one country', so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns landed cost of U.S. imports of construction materials and chemicals by HS 10-digit code, drawing on the Census IMDB source. The scope (month and YTD) plus the enumerated cost components (customs value, CIF, duty, quantity, unit cost, effective rate) make it unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from the pricing/estimate siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope (import landed cost by HS code) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing versus alternatives like get_us_construction_prices or get_us_price_chain. The agent must infer that this is the import-trade data source rather than a domestic price source.

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