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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety information. It adds useful context about data sources (World Bank, BIS) and output types (risk scores, eligibility flags, financing terms), going beyond the structured 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, with each sentence serving a purpose: purpose, inputs, outputs, and use cases. It is front-loaded with the main function and avoids redundancy or 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?

The description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool: it explains what it does, who it's for, the key inputs, outputs, and typical use cases. Given the presence of an output schema, return values do not need exhaustive detail. However, it omits guidance on optional parameters and async behavior, which are partially covered by 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 low (20%). The description explains two required parameters (counterpartyCountryCode with ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 format, and industrySector) but omits the optional parameters (annualTradeVolumeUSD, counterpartyCreditRating, async). It partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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: 'Evaluates trade finance eligibility for CFOs by analyzing counterparty risk and jurisdiction using World Bank and BIS data.' It uses a specific verb ('evaluates') and identifies the resource ('trade finance eligibility'), distinguishing it from siblings by focusing on eligibility assessment with counterparty and jurisdiction analysis.

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 clear use cases: 'Ideal for assessing letters of credit, export credit agency guarantees, and other trade finance instruments.' This gives context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternative tools.

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