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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation with variable results. The description adds value by specifying the type of data returned (costs, yields) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or async behavior (though async is in the schema). No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a usage note, with essential information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It achieves maximum efficiency for its purpose.

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?

For a read-only retrieval tool with an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description covers the main input (commodity), optional parameter (country), and usage context. It does not detail the output schema, but that is acceptable given its existence. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description, combined with annotations and schema, provides sufficient guidance for an agent to use it correctly.

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 75%, with 'limit' lacking a description in the schema. The description provides some additional context by noting 'Input: a commodity, with an optional country.' This partially compensates but does not explain all parameters (e.g., async, limit). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 returns production cost benchmarks and agronomic yields for a commodity, using a specific verb 'Return' and specifying the resource. While it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'ftg_production_methods' or 'ftg_market_gap', the purpose is unambiguous and appropriate for an economics-sizing task.

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 includes an explicit usage context: 'When to use this tool: an agent sizes the economics of producing a commodity.' This provides clear guidance on the intended use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, which would strengthen the dimension.

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