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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates what the brief contains (trade position/momentum, scored concentration risk, corridor breakdown, primary-vs-secondary feedstock) and discloses a "Pro tier only" entitlement gate.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads the usage trigger, the second enumerates report contents, and the tier restriction is tacked on at the end. Everything is load-bearing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, content, and the Pro-tier requirement. It stops short of noting alternatives or fallbacks for non-Pro callers, which is a minor gap for a single-parameter 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 goes slightly beyond the schema's "Commodity name, partial name, or HS6 code" by constraining the domain to a single tracked critical mineral, rare-earth oxide, or scrap stream — useful scoping, though it adds no format or syntax detail.

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 (generate) and resource (a complete sourcing/procurement brief) scoped to one tracked commodity. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_commodity_snapshot, assess_supply_risk, list_reports, and read_report by describing the composite deliverable it produces.

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?

"Use this when the user wants a complete sourcing or procurement brief for one tracked critical mineral, rare-earth oxide or scrap stream" gives clear triggering context and input scope. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_commodity_snapshot or assess_supply_risk instead), so routing is only partly guided.

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