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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the data provenance (Korea Customs Service) and, importantly, the paid-access requirement ($0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base), which an agent must know before invoking. It still omits anything about latency, rate limits, or freshness beyond 'latest'.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the payment terms. Nothing is padded or redundant. Slightly dense in the first sentence, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does sketch the return shape (period-over-period comparisons plus item contributions), and it discloses read-only status implicitly via annotations and the payment model. However, the undocumented 'months' parameter and the absence of any tie-breaker against kr_exports_query leave real gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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?

The single parameter 'months' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and fails to explain it at all — no format, no allowed range, no default behavior when omitted (required count is 0). A one-param tool with an undocumented parameter leaves the agent guessing how to scope the query.

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 names the specific resource and comparison basis: latest Korean export period vs prior month and prior year at the same stage, with item-level contribution, from Korea Customs Service. That is far more specific than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling kr_exports_query, which an agent would reasonably assume covers the same data.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus kr_exports_query or any other export-related sibling. The description only implies usage through the data it returns. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are given.

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