landed_cost

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool produces an estimate, defines who pays at import, notes the DDP nuance, and exposes accuracy sensitivity to HS codes. This is substantial behavioral context, though it does not cover data sources or handling of missing export country.

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?

Three efficient sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 provides a solid high-level picture and output schema exists, but with five parameters and zero schema descriptions it leaves important gaps. Import country, currency, and export country semantics are missing, and commodity item structure is only vaguely implied. It is adequate but not fully complete for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It touches on commodities ('one commodity line per product', HS code) and indirectly on incoterm via DDP, but it never mentions import_country, export_country, or currency. Required parameters and accepted incoterm values are left undocumented, leaving an agent to guess critical input semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate import duties, VAT and brokerage fees for an international shipment.' It also clarifies the payment responsibility (receiver vs. shipper under DDP), which gives precise scope and differentiates it from sibling tools like track_shipment and get_rates.

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 clearly states when the tool is not applicable ('Not applicable to intra-EU shipments') and provides practical usage guidance ('One commodity line per product; an HS code improves accuracy'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives among the sibling tools or explain when to prefer landed_cost over get_rates.

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