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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that aggregate reporters (EU, Euro area, groups) are excluded from the ranking, which is a non-obvious behavior. However, it does not explicitly state any safety characteristics (e.g., read-only) or mention rate limits, pagination, or side effects. The disclosure is partial, adding some value but leaving gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the counterpart relationship. Every phrase carries meaning: the breakdown scope, the counterpart, the ranking criteria, and the exclusion of aggregates. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has a complex nested query object and a rich output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It provides a high-level overview, the key distinction from a sibling tool, and a behavioral exclusion, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It could mention the various tabs (Pattern Shifts, Cross-section, etc.) or the `compact` parameter, but the schema already covers those details. Overall, it is complete enough given the surrounding context.

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%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are extremely detailed (e.g., product accepts CN codes or TOTAL, n_top controls top entities, compact condenses series). The tool description itself references 'Top-N member states' which aligns with the `n_top` parameter, adding a slight linkage. However, the description does not need to repeat parameter details; it provides minimal additional value beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'import/export breakdown' per EU member state, with top-N member states ranked by quantity and value. It explicitly names the sibling tool `get_partner_detail` as the counterpart, which distinguishes it from other siblings. The scope (reporter-side vs partner-side) is clear, and the exclusion of aggregate reporters is an additional clarifying 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 provides clear context by naming `get_partner_detail` as the counterpart, implying usage when a reporter-side breakdown is needed versus a partner-side one. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the exclusion of aggregate reporters hints at a limitation. It lacks exhaustive alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the core usage context is present.

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