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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context: data are collected receipts and counted cargo, not announcements, and no API key is required. This goes beyond the structured hints and sets expectations about data reliability and access.

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 dense but efficient, front-loaded with the core value proposition ('The month's pulse in one call') and then methodically listing contents, use cases, default behavior, data nature, and auth. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 description covers what data is included, when to use it, default month behavior, data nature, and access requirements. It lacks an explicit explanation of the detail parameter's effect on output, but overall it is quite complete for a read-only summary tool.

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 description explains the month parameter (pass YYYY-MM for history, omit for latest), adding context beyond the schema. However, the detail parameter is not mentioned at all, and with only 50% schema coverage, the description does not fully compensate for the missing detail semantics.

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 is a monthly review of US trade changes, enumerating specific data points (tariff bill, origins/chapters, gateway imports, trade-war measures). The 'Use for' examples like 'what happened in US trade in June' and 'any new tariffs this month' make the purpose unmistakable and distinguish it from sibling tools.

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?

It gives explicit use cases ('Use for ... or to open a briefing') and explains default behavior (latest month) and history parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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