Kiểm tra thay đổi thuế giữa 2 bản dataset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only comparison operation, but does not explicitly mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or potential costs. It gives basic transparency but lacks detail about edge cases or system impact.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, parameter default, and output format. There is no unnecessary information, and the structure is logical: statement of function, optional behavior, and return details.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, the description includes all necessary information: what it does, the parameter's default, and the exact structure of the returned data. It is complete for a user to understand and invoke the tool without additional context.

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?

The schema parameter 'hts_codes' is described both in the schema and in the tool description, with the default behavior (watchlist) clearly explained. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the description adds a concise clarification of the default behavior, earning a 4.

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's function: comparing current HTS version with a previous fetch and listing changes. It explicitly mentions the output structure (code, column, old/new values) and the default behavior when no codes are provided, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_hs_candidates or calculate_tariff_scenario. It only describes the tool's own behavior without mentioning when it is appropriate or inappropriate to use it.

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