incoterms_lookup

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: read-only behavior, error handling for unknown codes, rate limits (25 requests/day per IP), retry guidance with retry_after_seconds and Retry-After header, and a suggestion to call get_subscribe_link for higher limits. Annotations already confirm readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds actionable context. No contradiction.

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 starts with a clear purpose, then systematically covers usage, behavior, returns, limitations, and related tools. Every sentence adds essential information. It front-loads the most critical information. No redundancy or 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?

The description covers all aspects needed for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly: purpose, parameters, output structure (including specific fields under result), error handling, rate limits, limitations (summarised guidance, ICC publication binding), and related tools. Despite the output schema existing, the description summarizes return fields helpfully. The tool complexity (11 rules, two categories, error handling, rate limits, output structure) is fully addressed.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both code and category. The description adds significant value by explaining usage combinations (code, category, or none), providing code examples ('FOB', 'CIF'), and clarifying that category filters the list. It also describes behavior when both parameters are omitted or provided together.

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: 'Look up the 11 Incoterms 2020 trade rules — who pays for transport, insurance and customs clearance, and where risk transfers from seller to buyer.' It distinguishes between modes and provides specific usage patterns (by code, category, or listing all). The description differentiates this tool from sibling tools like uk_duty_calculator and shipment_summary.

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 states when to use each parameter combination: 'Provide code for one rule, category (any_mode | sea_only) for a filtered list, or neither to list all 11.' It also describes error behavior (unknown code errors with valid code list) and rate limiting with specific guidance on handling 429 errors and backup option (get_subscribe_link). Related tools are listed with context on how they relate.

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