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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: 'Station-level CGC rows are excluded pending commercial redistribution permission.' This is genuinely useful caveat about data completeness. However, it doesn't disclose return format, data freshness, or whether the data is aggregated at provincial vs sub-provincial levels.

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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose tersely, and the second provides a critical caveat about data exclusions. Every word earns its place.

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 and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete about what data it returns. However, as a data retrieval tool it could disclose more about the granularity (time series? latest year only?), units (CAD?), and the nature of 'excludes station-level CGC rows' implication for interpretation. The exclusion note is good but leaves the reader wondering what CGC means and how complete the remaining data is.

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 0 parameters, so there are no parameters requiring semantic explanation. Per the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description adds context about data origin (Statistics Canada) and scope (Saskatchewan, NAPCS section) which is helpful.

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 the tool provides Saskatchewan merchandise exports by NAPCS section from Statistics Canada, which is a clear verb+resource+scope. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like get_economy_overview or get_economic_signal, though the specific export focus is fairly unique among the sibling list.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention when exports data would be preferred over other economic indicators, nor are any exclusions or alternative tools named. The implied context is general economic data retrieval but nothing explicit.

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