query_customs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds some context by mentioning the 3.8GB database size, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, performance implications, or any side effects/safety notes. For a query tool this is a notable gap since the agent has no other source of behavioral expectations.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by a compact list of supported query types. It contains no filler, no repetition of schema details, and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is complex with 9 parameters and 6 query modes, yet the description does not explain parameter-to-mode combinations or indicate output/return behavior. Since no output schema exists, the description should have filled this gap but leaves the agent to infer how to correctly invoke each mode.

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 already provides 100% descriptive coverage of all 9 parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description's only parameter-related addition is replaying the query_type enum values, which adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema already states.

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 'Query Latvia customs analytics', using a specific verb and resource, and it enumerates supported query types (classifications, trends, top_commodities, etc.). This strongly clarifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from the sibling query_trade by focusing on Latvia customs and KN8 codes, though it does not explicitly compare against alternatives.

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 implies usage through the list of supported query types ('Supports: classifications, trends...'), which tells the agent what tasks it can fulfill. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like query_trade, nor any exclusions or prerequisite context.

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