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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: statelessness, the type of returned information, and the explicit boundary of never providing a final customs/legal conclusion. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. The scope is front-loaded and every clause adds distinct information: statelessness, lane coverage, return contents, and the final-conclusion boundary.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema), the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It does not explain how to specify currencies, when optional fields like hs_code or incoterm are needed, or what the manual-review flags imply. The core purpose is clear, but operational guidance is largely missing.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not mention hs_code, incoterm, currency fields, or how required fields relate to the output. The phrase 'known/unknown cost components' hints at some cost-related inputs, but it is far too generic to document 11 parameters effectively.

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 what the tool provides: a stateless preflight for China-to-US or China-to-EU shipments, returning official rule references, cost-component clarity, missing fields, and manual-review flags. It effectively conveys the resource and output scope, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools by name.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: for preflight checks on China-US/EU shipments, not for final customs or legal conclusions. It includes a useful exclusion, though it does not explicitly reference alternative sibling tools or contrast conditions.

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