commodity_codes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it names the data provenance (a dated CELLAR snapshot), warns that superseded or not-yet-applying entries are included, and adds a scope disclaimer ('Information, not legal advice'). It leaves silent the read-only nature, error behavior for bad commodity/date input, and response shape, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and regulation, with every clause naming a distinct piece of returned content. It is somewhat run-on but has no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload, and it does so concretely (CN codes, flags, descriptions, exclusions, later/replaced entries, notes) along with source and date semantics. The main gap is date-validation edge cases, which the input schema partially covers.

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 coverage is 50%: the date parameter is well documented in the schema, while commodity has only an enum with no per-value description. The description restates the seven commodity values already present in the enum and adds the 'on a date' framing, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 resource (all Annex I entries of one commodity under Regulation (EU) 2023/1115) and enumerates exactly what is returned: CN codes, 'ex' flags, Annex descriptions and exclusions, later/replaced entries, and table notes. An agent knows precisely what this tool yields without opening the schema.

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 implies the use case (need Annex I CN codes for a given commodity and date) but never states when to prefer this over the sibling eudr_scope or application_dates, nor any when-not condition. Usage is inferable from the content listing rather than stated.

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