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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by explaining that methods are canonical and reused across countries, and it details the return structure (ordered steps, pros/cons, rank). This goes beyond the 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 and well-structured: the first sentence states the core function and output, the second explains a key behavioral trait (canonical), and the third gives explicit usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage, and the canonical nature. It doesn't address edge cases like invalid commodity names, but for a read-only lookup with simple inputs, this is adequate.

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 description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The phrase 'commodity slug or name' repeats the schema's description. No additional semantics like examples or constraints beyond the schema are given, so 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 states the tool's function: 'Return the production methods for a commodity' with specific output components (description, process steps, pros/cons, popularity rank). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'commodity-canonical: one curated set per commodity, reusable across every country,' which separates it from country-specific or other 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 provides an explicit 'When to use this tool' section: 'an agent evaluates HOW a commodity is produced or processed, compares techniques, or builds a production plan.' However, it does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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