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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context by noting the data is 'verification-dated' and provides official source URLs, indicating data freshness and sourcing. No contradictions.

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 paragraph of three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value without fluff. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it remains efficient and clear.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description fully explains the return format: ranked HS chapters, verification-dated tariff rates with source URLs, and FTA timeline. With one optional parameter and annotations already covering safety, the description is complete for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has one optional parameter (hs_chapter) with a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond that. Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool returns Entrida's published Industry Index facts for the Türkiye→UK corridor, listing exact contents (ranked HS chapters, verification-dated tariff rates, FTA timeline). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on corridor-level questions and advising against answering from memory.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: for corridor-level questions about which sectors move, tariff margins, and FTA status. It advises not to answer from memory. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives among siblings or when not to use this tool in favor of another.

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