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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: what the score is computed from (HHI over partner-country shares), that a China-exposure read is returned, and that tier gating changes output depth (free = risk band only; Pro = score and drivers).

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: the usage trigger is front-loaded, then the method, then the tier-behavior caveat. No filler and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, yet the description still discloses tier-dependent output depth. Purpose, trigger conditions, method, and safety profile are all covered for a single-parameter read-only 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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents that commodity accepts a name, partial name, or HS6 code. The description adds domain scoping (critical minerals, rare earths, battery materials) but no additional input syntax or format detail, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (scores supply concentration risk) and names the exact method (Herfindahl-Hirschman index over partner-country shares) plus the China-exposure read. This clearly separates it from siblings like screen_suppliers, get_commodity_snapshot, or search_trade_flows, which do not produce a computed concentration score.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: supply-chain risk, China dependence, supplier concentration or diversification for a critical mineral, rare earth or battery material. It does not, however, name a sibling tool or state when NOT to use this (e.g., for a plain commodity profile use get_commodity_snapshot), so routing is good but not fully disambiguated.

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