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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: external data sources (WITS/UNCTAD), structured output content (risk assessment, compliance gaps, recommendations), and timeout/asynchronous behavior ('Pass async:true to avoid timeout'). This goes well beyond the structured 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: persona/action/scope, inputs/outputs, return value details, and async guidance. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler or redundancy.

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 description is strong overall, covering purpose, data sources, inputs, output categories, and timeout behavior; the output schema fills in detailed return structure. Minor gap: it does not clarify that hs_code is optional (only origin/destination are required) and leaves async job polling details to the schema.

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description mostly reiterates 'origin/destination countries and product HS codes' and 'Pass async:true to avoid timeout,' adding little beyond the schema. It does not clarify optionality of hs_code, so 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 opens with a specific verb 'analyze' and precise resource: 'non-tariff trade barriers (NTBs) across African trade corridors' using WITS and UNCTAD STAT data. The 'non-tariff' qualifier distinguishes it from tariff- and preference-focused sibling tools like africa_trade_preference_optimizer and tariff_arbitrage_finder. It also clearly lists inputs and expected outputs.

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 establishes clear usage context: use when analyzing NTBs for African corridors with origin/destination countries and HS codes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous enough to differentiate from sibling tools, and the async guidance adds practical invocation context.

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