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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description adds minimal additional behavioral context. The phrase 'multi-part structured analysis' implies a detailed output but does not disclose specifics like response size, latency, or partial results. It does not contradict the annotations, but the added value is limited.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the usage context. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly scannable and efficient for an agent.

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 tool has an output schema and annotations that handle return values and safety, so the description doesn't need to explain those. It covers the essential purpose, scope, and usage context. However, it does not detail the structure of the 'multi-part analysis' or address the async parameter, though these are sufficiently documented in 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%, with both 'country' and 'async' parameters already described in the input schema. The description's 'Input: a country' merely repeats what the schema states, adding no new semantic meaning. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 when the schema carries the full parameter documentation.

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 the tool's function: 'Return the in-depth FTG country study — multi-part structured analysis of a country's trade and production landscape.' This is a specific verb+resource (return a study) with a clear subject (country trade and production), distinguishing it from sibling FTG tools like ftg_country_regulations or ftg_production_economics, which focus on narrower aspects.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'an agent needs deep country context before a sourcing, export or investment decision.' This gives clear context for invocation, though it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, keeping 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.