Search HSN/SAC codes

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond them: 'Works offline', what the results contain (official descriptions with chapter and heading), and the advisory posture for ambiguous classifications. It does not mention result counts, ranking, or behavior when nothing matches, which would complete the picture.

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 purpose and lookup modes, then results, then routing. Every sentence carries information, though the closing responsibility sentence is long and slightly over-explains agent conduct.

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 correctly describes the return shape (official descriptions plus chapter and heading) and covers both query modes and the follow-on step. The one missing element for a three-param, multi-sibling tool is explicit differentiation from lookup_hsn_sac.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the goods/services/any enum and the 1-50 limit. The description's inline examples ('laptop', 'ghee', 'CA services') illustrate query phrasing but largely restate what the schema already says, so baseline 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?

Specific verb and resource: it finds HSN (goods) or SAC (services) codes from the official GST master list, and states both lookup modes (description or code prefix). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool named 'lookup_hsn_sac', which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

Gives explicit routing to find_gst_rate ('for the GST rate of goods, pass the code to find_gst_rate') and clear operating guidance to show candidates and defer to the user/CA on classification. The gap is that the closest alternative, lookup_hsn_sac, is never mentioned, so the when-to-use-this-vs-that condition is incomplete.

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