tnved_code_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety and repeatability are known. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the returned data composition and that the duty rate is decomposed into ad valorem / specific / combined parts, plus the conditional filtering of antidumping measures. It does not cover behavior on invalid or out-of-range codes (schema allows 4–10 digits) or how requests behave for missing tariff lines.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then a compact enumeration of return contents. No filler or restatement of the title; the phrasing is dense but readable. Slightly long return-list sentence could be tightened, but every element carries information.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so at a reasonable level — name, parent headings, duty rate decomposition, antidumping measures, and rulings. It is complete enough for an agent to judge relevance and call it correctly, though it stops short of describing output structure or edge-case behavior for unrecognized codes.

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 both parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that origin_country acts as a filter — omitted ('if given') it returns antidumping measures unfiltered rather than failing, a conditional behavior the schema does not state.

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 ('Get everything known about one TN VED EAEU code') and scopes it to a single code, which implicitly separates it from the sibling tnved_search. The second paragraph enumerates exactly what 'everything' covers — official name with parent headings, parsed duty rate, antidumping measures, and classification rulings — so an agent knows what it will receive.

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 description signals a single-code lookup and hints that origin_country is only relevant for antidumping checks ('filtered by origin country if given'). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer antidumping_check or classification_rulings_search, or when this aggregate tool is the better choice than those narrower siblings.

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