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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns every Federal Register notice for the case, including abstract text and URLs, and lists notice types such as initiation, order, continuation, revocation, and amendments.

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?

Two sentences pack in purpose, input formats, output contents, and usage context without fluff. The most important operational details are front-loaded.

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 is complete enough for a read-only lookup tool: it covers purpose, acceptable inputs, output contents, and where it fits relative to adcvd_orders. Minor gap: it does not explicitly state that at least one of the two optional parameters should be supplied, which could matter given required parameters is 0.

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 schema already covers both parameters, but the description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the case number structure (A or C, 3-digit country code, 3-digit case code) and clarifying that document_number is an alternative lookup key. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool looks up a specific AD/CVD case by case number or Federal Register document number, and explains the case number format. It differentiates itself from adcvd_orders by explicitly noting it returns the underlying Federal Register notices.

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 gives explicit guidance: use after adcvd_orders when the case number is already known and the underlying notices are needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the alternative and prerequisite are clear.

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