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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating the output fields (required_fields, recommended_fields, etc.) and explaining the status semantics (UNKNOWN, NEEDS_MORE_DATA, MANUAL_REVIEW), which is useful 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?

Four sentences convey usage timing, sibling alternatives, exclusions, output fields, and status meanings without redundancy. Key usage guidance is front-loaded, and every sentence 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?

For a read-only checklist tool with full schema coverage, the description is complete: it lists output fields, explains status values, defines scope (specific corridors), and gives explicit boundaries. An agent has all information needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 all four parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't mention material_use or product_description), so it stays at the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it checks the minimum data/compliance checklist for China→US or China→EU goods before quote/payment. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming normalize_supplier_quote, compare_preflight_quotes, and trade_preflight and their respective use cases, making selection unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use ('BEFORE asking for a final quote or before paying') and lists negative use cases ('Do not use it as a tariff classifier, freight marketplace, customs broker, or legal adviser'). It also names alternatives with clear conditions, leaving nothing to inference.

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