ics2_check

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. Description adds what is returned (flagged terms with notes, clean boolean, caveat, source) and states it is strictly a reference check, not legal advice. No contradiction with 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?

Description is efficient and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, then explains usage, return values, and limitations. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, low complexity), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, output, limitations, and distinction from siblings. No gaps.

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 100% with a clear description for the single parameter. The description adds usage context ('Pass description=<goods description>') but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 checks a goods description against the EU ICS2 stop-words list. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it is different from hs_code_lookup and uk_duty_calculator.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'QA a goods description BEFORE filing an ENS' and who should use it. Also clarifies what it is NOT: 'NOT an ENS filing, NOT a customs-compliance determination, NOT legal advice.' Mentions that clean does not guarantee acceptance and the list is non-exhaustive.

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