customs_clearance_fee

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful context: the rate year (2026), the numeric bracket range (1 231 to 73 860 RUB), and that the bracket table plus legal source are returned alongside the fee.

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 lines, front-loaded with the definition, then the value range, then the return contents. The parenthetical Russian legal term is useful rather than filler; only mild redundancy between the fee range sentence and the parameter's 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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description fills the remaining gap by stating what is returned (fee, full bracket table, legal source) and which jurisdiction and year the rates apply to. Little an agent would need in order to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the fee is driven by the total customs value of the declaration rather than per-item value, but adds no format or rounding detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the specific resource (customs clearance fee / сбор за таможенные операции), ties it to import declarations into Russia for 2026, and states the computation basis (total customs value). That is enough to separate it from siblings like calc_import_payments, calc_recycling_fee, and antidumping_check.

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 import-declaration context implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance such as when to use this versus calc_import_payments or calc_recycling_fee, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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