search_hsn_codes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and meaningfully discloses the match-ranking behavior: exact matches first, then descriptions starting with the term, then containing it. This is valuable for interpreting results. It stops short of describing the return shape or limit behavior, but the disclosed ranking is a substantive behavioral trait.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds genuinely useful ranking behavior that justifies 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 simple search tool, the description covers the input and the ordering semantics well. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the return format and the meaning of limit are left implicit, which could require an agent to infer or test these details at call time.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema; it only reframes the query as a 'term'. The schema documents query and kind, but the limit parameter has no semantic description, and the tool description does nothing to compensate for that gap.

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 the action ('Find') and resource ('HSN/SAC codes') with an explicit input condition ('free-text description'). The free-text qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling lookup_hsn_code, though it does not name that alternative 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?

The description establishes the primary usage context: use this when you have free text and need HSN/SAC codes. It does not list exclusions or explicitly name alternatives, but the intended use case is clear and not misleading.

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