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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the shape of the return (questions, answers, source page links), the citation requirement, and an anti-hallucination constraint ('Do not invent answers beyond the results') that meaningfully shapes agent behavior.

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, both front-loaded: the first covers what it does and returns, the second covers when to use it and the grounding rule. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and the source-page citation. For a simple three-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only the empty-result behavior and the uk/en default are left unstated.

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% with defaults, enum values and min/max already documented, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about lang, limit, or query syntax — the topical list loosely implies language coverage but never states the uk/en options. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search SEMERO's published FAQ) plus the topical scope (delivery, customs, China/USA shipping, documents) and the return payload. The 'use first for general questions' clause partially separates it from specialized siblings like delivery_rules and check_customs, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives clear activation context — use first for general questions in the listed domains — and a downstream obligation to cite the source page. It stops short of saying when to prefer a sibling tool (e.g. calculate_customs_payments for concrete cost figures) or what to do when no matches are returned.

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