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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond them — matching ignores case and accents — but says nothing about fuzzy vs exact matching, result limits, or ranking, and the existing output schema carries the return shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the matching rule. No filler and nothing an agent must read twice.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers scope and matching semantics adequately. Minor gaps remain around matching behavior (prefix vs substring) and result size, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with illustrative examples ('china', 'carnes', 'MOI'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning to the single query parameter by declaring accent- and case-insensitive matching, which the schema does not state.

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 ("Busca") plus the resource ("códigos del diccionario de comercio exterior") and enumerates the code families covered (países, rubros, subrubros, usos económicos, grandes categorías). It is clearly distinguishable from numeric-series siblings like inflation_series or wages, though it never names foreign_trade or query_sql as related lookup paths.

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?

Usage is implied: look up trade-dictionary codes before querying. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over foreign_trade or query_sql, nor any exclusion such as whether it searches only the code dictionary and not indicator data.

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