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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by disclosing data sources (UN Comtrade, WCO tariff schedules, AU trade rules) and output types, providing useful context on expected results and scope. It doesn't mention side effects or limitations, but with strong annotations, this is sufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second describes inputs/outputs, third cites data sources, fourth lists use cases, followed by keywords. Every sentence serves a clear function with no fluff 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 covers purpose, inputs, outputs, data sources, and target use cases. The presence of an output schema and thorough parameter descriptions offsets the need for return-value details. Minor omissions like async behavior are already addressed in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for tool selection.

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?

The input schema provides detailed descriptions for all six parameters, including examples for hsCode and country codes. The description's mention of 'origin country, destination country, and HS code' merely echoes the schema without adding syntax, constraints, or behavior. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 clearly identifies the tool as an analyzer of AGOA/EBA duty savings with HS code-level trade route optimization, specifying distinct outputs (duty savings estimates, optimal trade routes, preference utilization recommendations). This specific combination differentiates it from siblings like 'tariff_arbitrage_finder' or 'agoa_eba_intelligence' by emphasizing route optimization and actionable recommendations.

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 states 'Ideal for export market evaluation, supply chain optimization, and trade agreement compliance analysis,' giving clear use context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name any alternatives, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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