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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the cost of 1 credit per page, result ordering by FOB descending, currency in USD, and aggregation details. This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing pagination cost and return characteristics.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding unique value: the first defines the ranking logic, the second covers filters and output format, and the third states the cost. No filler words, purpose is front-loaded, and structure is easy to scan.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description compends the most critical return details (FOB amounts, ordering, CUIT resolution) and the credit cost per page. A minor gap is the lack of a page size or default result count, which would help agents understand pagination behavior. Overall, it is largely complete for a read-only ranking tool.

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 86%, meaning most parameters already have meaningful descriptions (e.g., NCM prefix formats, date format AAAAMM, activity codes). The tool description adds a high-level summary of filtering capabilities but does not add substantive per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: generating a ranking of Argentine importing companies based on monthly import dispatches, with specific aggregation dimensions (period, NCM position, country of origin) and resolved to CUIT. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like buscar_empresas or ficha_empresa by focusing on importer rankings with monetary amounts.

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 implies usage through its specific purpose (when you need importer rankings), but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives such as buscar_empresas or ficha_empresa. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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