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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool is free, uses live UN Comtrade data, and the first call for a code takes a few seconds, which helps set latency expectations.

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 a single dense but front-loaded paragraph with no filler. Every clause contributes: scope, data source, output components, alternative tool, cost, safety, and latency.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned content: imports by country, latest complete year, 3-year growth, Korea's exports, reply rates, and Pareto picks. Combined with rich annotations and full schema parameter coverage, an agent has enough information to call the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents the hs code format with examples and the limit parameter with its bounds and default. The description reinforces that any 4-digit HS code is accepted but adds no extra syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific operation and resource: live UN Comtrade import markets by country for any 4-digit HS code, enriched with TradeGraph reply rates and Pareto picks. It also scopes the tool to products outside TradeGraph's 35 items and distinguishes it from gtm_plan, so an agent can tell what this tool returns.

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 gives a clear usage condition ('For products outside TradeGraph's 35 items') and names gtm_plan as the alternative for a full plan using the same HS code. It does not explicitly say what to use for products inside TradeGraph's 35 items or clarify overlap with sibling tools such as market_picks, so it falls short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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