ita_tariff_rates

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value by specifying the type of data returned (tariff lines, rates, base rates, final year, rule text), which is helpful but not behavioral context like pagination, default limits, or authentication. With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description provides some additional context but not extensive behavioral detail.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the main verb and resource, and every word adds functional value. It avoids fluff and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 4 optional parameters, 100% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and return result categories. It does not specify pagination, result count defaults, or response format, but the schema covers parameters and the description covers the core usage. It is complete for a search tool with good schema support.

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 each parameter having a clear description. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level detail beyond mentioning the search dimensions. Since the schema covers parameters thoroughly, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not compensate with additional examples or parameter relationships, but it is not necessary.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource: Free Trade Agreement (FTA) tariff rates. It lists the key search dimensions (HTS code, partner country, keyword) and the types of results returned (tariff lines, rates, base rates, final year, rule text). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling trade-related tools like ita_trade_events.

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 states that the tool searches FTA tariff rates, implying use when the agent needs FTA tariff information. It does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate from other trade tools. The context signals show no exclusions or alternative guidance, so it is slightly above baseline but lacks explicit alternative references.

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