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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the forgiving country matching, the advisory role of HTS codes (and that an HTS mismatch does not mean 'not covered'), and the status resolution logic (in_place, in_place_revoked_in_part, revoked). It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful operational details.

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 information-dense with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives usage examples, then the critical caveats. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is logical: purpose → usage → edge-case guidance. It remains readable despite its length.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 optional params, no output schema), the description covers what is needed: it explains the search scope (product and/or country), the returned fields (case numbers, order type, notice), and the statuses. It even pre-empts the HTS misinterpretation. The absence of a 'requires at least one of product/country' statement is mitigated by the example queries implying both are acceptable. The description is complete for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances several parameters: it clarifies that 'country' is forgiving (plain names work), that 'hts' is advisory only and explicitly warns about misinterpretation, and that 'product' is keyword-based. This adds real value beyond the schema's simple 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 opens with a precise, specific statement: it checks for US AD/CVD trade-remedy orders on a product from a country. It names the exact resource (Federal Register/ITA notices), the action (search and resolve status), and the outputs (case numbers, order type, notice). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like adcvd_case, which likely focuses on a single case rather than order-level queries.

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 provides concrete example queries (e.g., 'is there an antidumping/countervailing duty order on X from Y') that tell an agent exactly when to invoke this tool. It gives clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (such as adcvd_case). This is a strong but not exhaustive usage guideline.

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