classification_rulings_search

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add domain context, which it does: it discloses that results are legally binding across the EAEU and constitute the strongest evidence for a code, and it lists the returned fields (decision number, date, product, TN VED code/heading, source link). It does not mention result volume, ordering, or what happens when no ruling exists.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the evidentiary weight rationale and then the return shape. No filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description properly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it conveys the legal significance of the data. Minor gap: nothing on combining the two optional filters or on behavior when no matching ruling is found.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema with examples, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the two parameters, notably not whether 'code' and 'query' are combined with AND semantics or whether one is preferred.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: searching EEC decisions on classification of specific goods, with the scope narrowed to goods classification rather than tariff lookup generally. It implicitly distinguishes itself from tnved_search by framing the outputs as 'binding for all EAEU customs and the strongest evidence for a code', though it never names the sibling.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that these decisions are binding and are 'the strongest evidence for a code' tells an agent this is the authoritative source when a code needs justification. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of how it relates to tnved_search or tnved_code_info, and no guidance on when to query by code versus by product words.

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