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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive guardian, but the description adds valuable context: the id format ('heading:1201' or 'country:160'), the data contents (Brazilian exports/imports in USD FOB and kg), the data source, and the credit cost (1 credit, max 2 per session). It also notes the output is citable with a public URL. These details are not in the annotations and enhance transparency. The only minor gap is not covering the response_format parameter's quota implication in the description, but it's already in the schema.

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 structured into clear sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and output, then covers constraints and sibling tools, and ends with credit costing. It's appropriately sized given the tool's complexity and the need to distinguish from many siblings.

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 tool with an output schema and detailed annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, id constraints, output content, sibling differentiation, and costing. There is no missing information an agent would need to call it 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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant meaning beyond schema: it tells the agent that 'id' is not arbitrary text but must match specific shapes from kyrodata_search, and it explains the semantics of 'response_format' (concise vs detailed) and its quota implications. This goes well beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 states the tool's purpose: opening one public foreign-trade document by id and returning it as citable prose. It specifies the verb, resource, and output (title, body text, URL). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is the only tool that returns a document with a URL, and it names complementary tools (kyrodata_get_heading_overview and kyrodata_search) to avoid confusion.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: use this tool when you need a citable document, use kyrodata_get_heading_overview for structured figures, and use kyrodata_search to find an id. It also clarifies when not to use it and enforces the id constraint (not free text). This is exactly the kind of when/when-not alternative guidance that scores high.

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