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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'reported yearly' and does not disclose what happens when exporter/importer filters are omitted or how pagination behaves.

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 one direct, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It conveys the core operation compactly.

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?

For a simple, read-only lookup that has an output schema and well-described parameters, the description is largely sufficient for invocation. The main gaps are sibling differentiation and behavior when no country filters are provided, but these are minor given the available structured context.

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?

With 60% schema description coverage, the schema documents most parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of the year, exporter, importer, and value parameters, but adds little beyond what the schema already states and does not address optionality or defaults.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('corridor trade' goods-flow values) and explicitly scopes results to exporter and importer countries. It is distinct from siblings like get_global_trade or get_country_trade semantically, though it does not name them.

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 phrase 'between exporter and importer countries' implies this is the right tool for bilateral corridor queries, so an agent can infer a basic use case. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives or exclusions.

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