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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well by enumerating the exact date fields, amendment history, and best-effort HS-code coverage. It does not mention error behavior or read-only status, but for a get-detail tool the primary behavior is well disclosed.

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?

A single sentence with a colon-separated list packs all key information with no filler. The output scope is front-loaded and every clause adds useful detail.

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?

The output content is well described, and the best-effort caveat is useful, but the description lacks guidance on obtaining or supplying measure_id and does not distinguish itself from alternatives. For a simple one-parameter lookup, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain measure_id. It only indirectly references 'one trade measure' and does not say where the ID comes from, how it is formatted, or how it relates to sibling tools. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's required number type.

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 resource as 'one trade measure' and specifies exactly what detail is provided: dates, amendment history, and HS-code coverage. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_trade_measures, which focuses on multiple measures.

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 phrase 'for one trade measure' makes the scope explicit: use this when you need full detail for a single measure rather than a list. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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