Look up US import records (importers, suppliers, bills of lading)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses that it runs the Apify Actor tacps126/us-import-records on the caller's Apify account (an auth/credential dependency), quotes per-unit pricing, and states a hard $0.5 per-call spend cap. Cost and credential requirements are exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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 scope statement is front-loaded and every clause carries information; nothing is filler. The middle sentence is a long comma-chained enumeration that reads as a run-on, which slightly hurts scanability, but no sentence could be deleted without loss.

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 ten parameters, nested objects, and a published output schema, the definition covers intent, cost, and credentials well enough to call correctly, and it does not waste space restating return values the output schema defines. The one real omission is that no parameter is marked required, and the description never states that at least one of companies or suppliers must be supplied for a meaningful call.

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%, so the schema already documents every one of the ten parameters including defaults, ranges, and the cost note on max_items. The description implies the two primary modes (importer lookup vs. supplier lookup) but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ("US customs sea import records for a US importer or an overseas supplier") and then enumerates the payload: shipments and 12-month trend, suppliers/customers, weight, HS codes, products, countries, ports, carriers, bills of lading, and lookalikes. That is far more specific than any sibling tool name suggests, and it makes clear this is customs/bill-of-lading data rather than generic company firmographics or news.

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?

It names four concrete use cases (sourcing, supplier discovery, importer prospecting, supply-chain research), which gives an agent a clear sense of the situations this tool fits. It does not, however, contrast itself with plausible siblings such as find_companies or get_supplier_contracts, nor does it state when not to use it.

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