calculate_trade_tariffs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never says whether this is a pure read/computation with no side effects, whether it requires auth or a session, or whether results are cached or rate-limited. Listing outputs is not the same as disclosing behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler, front-loaded on the resolving action. It is efficient and readable, though the comma-separated output list reads slightly like a spec sheet rather than a purpose statement.

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 usefully signals the returned dimensions (HS code, duty layers, CBAM), which covers part of the return-value gap. However, it omits units, currency, how jurisdiction swaps regime logic, and the default behavior, so it is only partially complete for a 2-param calculation tool.

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%, with both parameters documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no per-parameter meaning (e.g., how importer_jurisdiction changes the duty regime or what mineral_type values are accepted), leaving the schema to do all the work.

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 a specific verb ('Resolves') and enumerates the concrete outputs: HS code, MFN base duty, FTA preferential duty, Section 301 tariffs, and CBAM benchmarks. This clearly separates it from sibling lookup/verification tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the overlapping 'get_global_trade_flows'.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for adjacent tasks like route/freight estimation or origin verification. The agent must infer the trigger entirely from the tool name.

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