Đăng ký theo dõi thay đổi thuế cho danh sách mã HTS

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that the tool saves codes and requires a subsequent call to check_tariff_updates to see changes. However, it does not mention potential side effects like whether the watchlist is overwritten or appended, or any permissions needed, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, with the first sentence stating the primary action and the second explaining the workflow with check_tariff_updates. It is efficient, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words 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?

For a tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, how to integrate it with check_tariff_updates, and the intended use case (monitoring 2025-2026 tariff changes). It lacks minor details such as return behavior or watchlist mutation semantics, but overall it is adequately complete for correct invocation.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (hts_codes and origin_country), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only 'kèm xuất xứ' (with origin) which merely restates the schema's origin_country field, adding no new meaning or format details beyond what the schema already communicates.

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 saves HTS codes to a watchlist for monitoring tariff changes, using the specific verb 'Lưu' (save) and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool check_tariff_updates by explicitly pointing to it as the follow-up step, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to track 2025-2026 tariff changes without manual searching, and explicitly instructs to call check_tariff_updates after dataset updates. It does not mention exclusions or when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit alternative guidance.

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