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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the ranking criteria (market gap, opportunity score, potential margin) and cross-country scope. It does not contradict annotations and provides insight beyond what structured fields alone convey.

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: two sentences front-load the core purpose and usage context. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool has a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, ranking criteria, and when to use. It could add an example output or note on async behavior, but those are already covered by the schema, so overall it is complete for selection and 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 100% for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the commodity input ('Input: a commodity name') and adds no extra semantics for async or limit. Since the schema fully documents parameters, no additional meaning is required, but the description adds marginal value.

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 states a specific action ('Rank the best countries') with a clear resource ('for a given commodity') and ranking criteria (market gap, opportunity score, potential margin). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'Cross-country scouting' and the decision context (where to sell, export, or produce), which is unique among the FTG tools.

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?

It explicitly provides a when-to-use trigger: 'an agent has a commodity and needs to know WHERE to sell, export to or set up local production.' It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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