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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that each opportunity carries gap value, volume, opportunity score, and margin, and by noting the tool identifies structural under-production or over-imports. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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: three short sentences covering action, output details, and use case. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description adequately explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It could mention data freshness or limitations, but for a read-only market-gap search tool, the level of detail is sufficient. It is slightly below a 5 because it does not describe the meaning of the opportunity score or potential margin, though these may be in the output 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 baseline is 3. The description only restates the country input ('a country (ISO-2 code or name)') which is already in the schema. It does not add extra meaning for limit or async parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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+resource: 'Return the import/production market-gap opportunities for a country,' clearly stating what it does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ftg_business_ideas and ftg_opportunity_scout by focusing on market gaps (commodities where local demand outpaces local supply) rather than broad opportunities.

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 an explicit 'When to use this tool' section: 'an agent needs to know what a country structurally under-produces or over-imports, for trade sourcing, import/export or local-production investment decisions.' This gives clear context for usage, though it does not name alternative tools or exclusions, matching the 4-level criterion.

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