required_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the checklist is indicative, not binding, and details how goods and destination trigger specific documents. It also mentions payment premium and normalization. No contradictions or missing side effects are apparent.

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 well-structured, starting with the main purpose and then detailing components. It is efficiently packed with information, though it includes some marketing language ('PREMIUM: pay per call') that is less essential. Overall, it is concise given the complexity.

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 complexity of the tool (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains what the checklist contains, how optional inputs affect it, and what limitations exist. The return format is implied but not detailed, which is acceptable for a checklist tool.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds substantial value by explaining how each parameter influences the checklist (e.g., product triggers goods-specific docs, incoterm tags responsibilities). This goes beyond 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 that the tool produces a checklist of trade documents required for shipping goods to a destination. It specifies the commercial set, goods-triggered specials, destination filings, and certificate of origin, which is distinct from sibling tools like 'check_lc_documents' or 'export_compliance'.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: when you need to know required documents for a shipment. It lists necessary inputs (origin, destination, product/hs_code) and optional parameters, and clarifies that without product/hs_code, you still get core and destination sets. It also warns that this is not a binding filing list. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools.

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