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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds the domain scope (import/trade/production) and mentions output fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or async behavior beyond what annotations cover.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: what it returns, when to use it, and what input is needed. No redundant or filler content.

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?

With output schema present and read-only/open-world annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage context, and core input. It does not elaborate on limit/async parameters, but these are defined in the schema, so the overall tool guidance is complete enough for selection and basic invocation.

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 country and category already documented. The description reinforces that country is required and category is optional but does not clarify the limit or async parameters. This adds marginal value beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource: import, trade, and production regulations for a country, including output components. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ftg_country_study or ftg_market_gap by focusing on regulatory/compliance data.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when an agent checks regulatory or compliance requirements before trading or producing in a market'). It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5 but provides clear contextual guidance.

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