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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: a concrete cost model ($0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base), revision tracking behavior, provisional (10-day) data freshness, and an 'observed values only' constraint. It does not discuss rate limits or return shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: resource and data scope first, then input constraints, then pricing. No filler or repetition, though the pricing sentence competes with the substantive content for prominence.

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 usefully enumerates returned data (provisional totals, changes, major items, HS codes, countries, revisions), so return content is reasonably conveyed. However, for a six-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the filtering semantics of the four optional parameters remain unspecified.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It loosely maps hs (HS codes), country (countries), and question (Korean/English question), and hints at time via 'change vs prior month and year', but gives no format, range, or interaction guidance for from, to, or months, leaving three of six parameters effectively undefined.

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?

Names a specific resource (South Korea exports from Korea Customs Service statistics) and enumerates the data content it serves: 10-day provisional totals, month/year changes, major items, HS codes, countries, revisions. Clear enough to place, but it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling kr_exports_pulse, leaving the agent to guess which export tool to pick.

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 states input constraints ('Korean or English question; observed values only') and pricing but gives no when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent facing kr_exports_pulse alongside this tool has no stated rule for choosing between them.

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