hs_code_lookup

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the exact number of codes (6,940), explains the hierarchy structure, and differentiates between search modes (description vs. exact code). This provides useful transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the core capability, follows with a brief explanation of HS codes, then lists specific use cases in bullet points. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the structure makes it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., full HS code, description, duty rates). Since there is no output schema, the agent has no information about the response format or content. This is a significant gap for a lookup tool, as the agent needs to know what data to expect.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with standard descriptions. The description adds significant value by explaining when to use each parameter: 'Provide a search term for description-based search, or an exact HS code for detailed lookup' and mentions section browsing. This clarifies the semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: searching HS tariff codes. It explains what HS codes are and provides specific use cases (find code, get hierarchy, browse sections). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like adr_lookup or incoterms_lookup.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool with three bulleted scenarios. While it does not mention when not to use it or directly compare to siblings, the use cases are clear and cover the main applications. A stronger exclusion statement would have earned a 5.

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