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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key non-obvious behavior: values above 100% are legitimate and not clamped, with reasons. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as error handling, data availability caveats, or any required authentication, leaving some uncertainty about the tool's full behavior.

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 compact and well-structured: a definition, a critical nuance, and a list of return contents. Each of the three sentences earns its place without redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the core concept.

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 rich input schema and presence of an output schema cover most technical details, and the description adds valuable context (non-clamping, return contents). The only minor gap is the statement 'annual' which could mislead agents about the configurable frequency parameter, but the schema clarifies this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a well-specified 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only indirectly hints at product code resolution. Since the schema fully documents every parameter, the description's lack of parameter detail is acceptable.

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 precisely defines the metric ('Export Propensity = Exports / Production, annual') and explicitly states the deliverable ('Returns the export-propensity matrix') with a clear verb and resource. It also highlights the non-clamping behavior, which distinguishes it from simpler ratio tools. This makes the tool's purpose 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_net_import_reliance or get_trade_intensity. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, exclusions, or alternatives. The only implied usage is 'use it when you need export propensity,' which is not sufficient guidance.

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