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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description earns credit by defining the actual detection logic for both categories, which the annotations cannot convey. However, it says nothing about result ordering, whether both lists are always present, or how limit applies across the two categories, and the fixed 'USD 100,000' prior-period threshold sits oddly against the min_value parameter documented as applying to 'last 12 months or the 12 before'.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the classification rule rather than preamble, plus a faithful parallel Japanese rendering. Slightly redundant in its bilingual duplication, but no filler sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description gives no hint of the response shape — whether results are two separate arrays, whether volumes/growth rates are included, or how the 1-100 limit is distributed across the new and surged sets. For a tool that returns two distinct classifications, that leaves a meaningful gap.

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 every parameter including code, flow, lang, level, limit and min_value is already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description adds the key semantic that two different time windows are compared, but it introduces ambiguity by hard-coding USD 100,000 for the prior period while min_value's default of 1,000,000 is described as applying to either window.

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 names a precise computed resource — partners that newly appeared vs. partners that surged — with concrete quantitative rules (last 12 months at/above the minimum, prior 12 months under USD 100,000; surge ≥ 2x). That makes it clearly distinguishable from get_partners or get_ranking in substance. It never names a sibling, though, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is for discovering emerging trade partners, but there is no stated when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g., get_partners for a full listing, get_ranking for top partners). No prerequisites or scope caveats are given.

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