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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by explaining what the tool computes: resolving Section 301/232 Chapter-99 add-ons into an effective total, and returning base rates, Chapter-99 provisions, and a plain-language note. It does not mention limitations or edge cases, but annotations already confirm a safe, non-destructive operation, so the extra context is sufficient.

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 front-loaded with the core action and uses three sentences, each contributing useful information: the function, the usage context with a concrete example, and the return payload. It is slightly long due to the tariff calculation example, but nothing is wasted, and the structure makes the complex behavior clear.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the burden of explaining return values: base rates, Chapter-99 provisions, and a plain-language note. It also covers when to use it, a concrete example, and how it differs from the sibling search tool, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides a 100% description of the hts_code parameter with examples, so the description only adds the 'ONE' qualifier and an illustrative tariff example. This is helpful but does not meaningfully expand parameter semantics beyond the schema's own coverage; a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), names the resource ('full tariff detail for ONE HTS code'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool hts_search by focusing on post-search detailed lookup. The scope (ONE code), the added Chapter-99 resolution, and the example make the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 after hts_search when you have the specific code and need the REAL landed tariff.' It also names the alternative workflow ('after hts_search') and gives a concrete example, so an agent knows the correct invocation context and what to expect.

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