Tìm ứng viên mã HTS theo mô tả sản phẩm

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It openly states results are candidates, not rulings, and warns about the need for legal terminology, preventing misuse. It also implies potential retry behavior, which is useful context.

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?

Two short paragraphs with clear structure: function, caveat, then highlighted important usage note. Dense but not overly long, with critical advice front-loaded in caps.

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?

Despite no output schema, description explains what is returned (duty, link) and the preprocessing needed. It covers essential behavior for a search tool, though it could mention limit parameter semantics more, but schema handles that.

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 covers both parameters, but description adds crucial guidance on how to phrase product_description (translate to HTS-style material+function with examples), which goes beyond schema and substantially improves usage correctness.

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 it returns top 8-10 digit HTS code candidates with duty and precedent link, and explicitly notes results are candidates for screening, not final rulings. It distinguishes from siblings (calculate, watch, check, dataset) by being a search function.

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?

Provides explicit instructions: translate commercial product names into legal HTS terminology before calling, with concrete examples, and if zero results, retry with alternative phrasings. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools but sets clear context for when to use (pre-broker screening).

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