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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the data comes from Korea Customs Service and the totals are provisional (10-day, revised later), which affects how an agent should trust and present the numbers. It says nothing about update cadence beyond that or response format.

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 efficiently packed sentence with the source and scope front-loaded and no filler. It could be tightened slightly, but there is no wasted text.

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?

This is a free-form natural-language query tool with no output schema and one uncommented parameter, so the description must carry the burden of explaining expected inputs and returns. It describes the data domain but not the answer shape (tables? single figures? charts?) or how to scope a question, leaving an agent under-informed about invocation.

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% and the single 'question' parameter has no description in the schema. The description does not compensate — it never explains what form the question should take, whether HS codes, country names, or date ranges can be embedded, or what phrasing yields best results. Only the general topic list hints at acceptable subject matter.

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?

Names the specific data domain (South Korea export statistics), the source agency, and the granularity (10-day provisional totals, HS code and country breakdowns), which clearly separates it from siblings like kr_apartment_trades, kr_fx, and kr_rates. It lacks an explicit verb (retrieve/query), but the resource is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools for adjacent Korean economic data (kr_fx, kr_rates). The agent must infer from the data-domain sentence alone when this tool is the right choice.

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