get_customs_friction_baseline

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

The description reveals the composite score calculation, optional country parameter breakdown, and 30-day history. However, it contradicts the input schema by claiming an optional country parameter that is not defined in the schema, creating confusion about the tool's expected inputs. Annotations are empty, so the description carries full burden, but this error undermines trust.

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 a single paragraph of four sentences, efficiently conveying purpose, composition, coverage, and usage. No extraneous words are present, though it is slightly longer than necessary.

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 explains the output format (composite score, optional breakdown with components and history) and intended use. Without an output schema, it provides sufficient understanding. However, it does not clarify the default behavior when no parameter is provided (e.g., returns all countries), which would enhance completeness.

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 description mentions an 'optional country parameter' but the input schema defines zero parameters (schema_description_coverage=100%). This is a contradiction: the description adds meaning that does not align with the actual schema, misleading the agent about how to invoke the tool.

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 retrieves composite customs friction baseline scores by country, detailing the score composition (55% port congestion + 45% trade policy), coverage of 21 countries across multiple regions, and the optional country parameter for detailed breakdown. This is specific and informative, although no explicit differentiation from sibling tools is provided.

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 identifies target users (trade compliance teams, procurement managers, logistics planners) and the use case (assess customs clearance risk by country). It does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among sibling tools, but the context is clear.

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