Kịch bản thuế cho một mã HTS + xuất xứ + trị giá

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly notes that the tool returns Chapter 99 rules verbatim and instructs the LLM to read the exception string to layer duties correctly, and to always remind the user that the result is an estimate. This goes beyond the schema by revealing the output format and the need for interpretation.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first front-loads the core function, the second gives clear LLM instructions. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description defines the key return values (MFN/FTA duties, Chapter 99 rules, MPF/HMF fees) and includes a processing protocol for the LLM. Given the absence of an output schema, it is fairly complete, though it does not address edge cases like invalid codes or missing unit-based inputs (which the schema partially covers).

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 the tool description does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already states for each parameter. It mentions origin and value only generically, while the schema gives specific usage constraints for quantity, weight, and ocean_freight.

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 clearly states the tool returns MFN/FTA duties, all Chapter 99 rules (IEEPA/301/232) verbatim, and MPF/HMF fees. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling search/watch/update tools.

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 description implies the tool is for tariff calculation with Chapter 99 layers, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_hs_candidates or watch_tariff_changes. The context is clear enough to infer usage, but no exclusionary guidance is provided.

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