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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the tool costs 0 credits, returns documents with URLs, and clarifies the semantic quirk that free text and codes converge on the same result. No contradiction with annotations.

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 denser than the calibration examples but every sentence earns its place: purpose, return value, query semantics with examples, the discovery framing, the sibling distinction, and the credit cost. It is front-loaded with purpose and contains no filler, though it is slightly long.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description is complete. The output schema covers return structure, annotations cover safety, and the description covers purpose, alternatives, query semantics, examples, and credit cost. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by clarifying that `query` accepts either Portuguese free text or a code and that both reach the same place, with concrete examples ('soja' and '1201' both land on soybean, 'China' on partner country). This goes beyond the schema's terse 'plain words' description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('public Brazilian foreign-trade catalogue') and states exactly what it returns: document ids for kyrodata_fetch covering HS headings and partner countries, each with a public URL. It actively distinguishes itself from the sibling kyrodata_resolve_entity by naming it, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 frames this as DISCOVERY ('when the caller has words rather than an id') and names the alternative tool for the opposite case ('Turning a name already known into an id for filtering another tool is kyrodata_resolve_entity'). This is an explicit when/when-not with the alternative named.

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