camelot_customs_declaration_form

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

The description adds 'Local browser processing,' which is valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It also frames the action as drafting a worksheet, implying non-destructive creation, consistent with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. The canonical URL and the double period after 'valuations' are minor clutter, but the overall length is appropriate and the main action is immediately clear.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is largely complete for an agent to invoke the tool. It lacks explicit alternative-selection guidance, but nothing critical about how or when to call it is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context around HS codes and item valuations, but it does not meaningfully elaborate on senderName, recipientName, weightKg, or description beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Draft international shipping customs declaration worksheets with HS codes and item valuations.' It clearly identifies the tool's domain and differentiates it from sibling tools like shipping_label_mockup or shipment_vendor_log by naming a distinct deliverable.

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 use for international shipping customs declarations, giving some context, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no explicit routing compared to related siblings like shipment_vendor_log or shipping_label_mockup.

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