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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds a domain constraint about ordering eligibility, but does not describe return format, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits beyond what the annotations provide.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the resource and the second adds a constraint, both front-loaded and 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should explain what is returned. It conceptually says 'kinds of business' but does not specify whether the return is a list of names, IDs, or objects, nor how those values should be used with order_report. It is minimally adequate but leaves an important gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description appropriately does not invent any.

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 conveys the resource ('kinds of business Vaeo makes reports for') but uses a noun phrase instead of a clear verb and does not resolve the mismatch between the tool name 'list_trades' and the phrase 'kinds of business.' An agent can infer it returns a set of valid reportable business types, but the purpose is not stated as precisely as it could be.

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 sentence 'A business of another kind cannot be ordered yet' implies that this tool should be used to determine which businesses can be ordered for, but it does not explicitly say when to call it or name alternatives such as order_report. The constraint provides useful context but leaves routing to inference.

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