hs_code_lookup

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. Description adds context on the tool's scope (6,940 codes), hierarchy details, and three modes of operation. No contradictions.

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?

Efficiently written with front-loaded purpose, bullet points for use cases, and clear separation of input modes. No superfluous text.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description implies what is returned (codes, hierarchy). Could briefly mention return format or contents, but is sufficient for a search 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% with all three parameters documented. Description restates the purpose of query and code but does not add significant detail beyond the schema. Baseline score maintained.

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 searches HS tariff codes, explicitly mentioning 6,940 codes and their hierarchical structure (chapter, heading, subheading). It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover different domains (ADR, containers, incoterms, etc.).

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?

Provides explicit use cases: find HS code for a product, get hierarchy, browse sections. Also explains input modes. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements, but siblings are clearly different so guidance is sufficient.

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