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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that rankings are provided by both quantity and value, and that an optional 'Other' bucket exists. However, it does not mention any limitations, data handling specifics, or what happens with missing data or how the top-N is determined (though n_top parameter is in the schema). It is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that is information-dense and well-organized, starting with the core purpose and then elaborating on specifics. It avoids fluff but could benefit from a more structured breakdown of key behaviors. Still, it is appropriately sized.

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 tool is complex with many parameters and an output schema, but the description only provides a high-level overview. It does not mention the various tabs or cross-section views, which are likely important for distinguishing results. The input schema carries much of the detail, but the description alone leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal extra semantic value by mentioning 'top-N' and 'Other' bucket, which map to 'n_top' and 'include_other' parameters, but it does not explain any parameter behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 it provides a per-partner import/export breakdown with top-N rankings and time series, which distinguishes it from sibling tools dealing with aggregates or other breakdowns. It uses a specific verb-like noun phrase and lists concrete output elements. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar tools like get_top_entities or get_reporter_detail.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools. The only implicit clue is 'Per-partner' which hints at its specific focus, but this is not explicit usage guidance.

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