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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that data is 'reported' and 'yearly', which gives some context about the nature of the data, but does not disclose details like pagination behavior, return structure, or any special quirks. Since annotations carry the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary output and resource, making it immediately actionable. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 an output schema present and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the tool is adequately specified. The description covers the core purpose, and annotations cover safety. Missing details like whether it returns a single record or a list are presumably handled by the output schema. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention that results are a list, but this is not critical given the limit/offset parameters imply a collection.

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 each parameter (year, limit, offset, country_iso3) is already documented with types, ranges, and defaults. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely states the high-level output fields (imports, exports, balance, growth) which indirectly relates to the purpose but not specifically to parameter syntax or semantics. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'yearly imports, exports, balance, and growth for a country.' It clearly indicates the tool's focus on country-level trade data, distinguishing it from siblings like get_global_trade or get_corridor_trade by the 'for a country' qualifier. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 implies usage for country-specific trade metrics but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_global_trade or get_product_trade. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling list. The context is clear enough for a reasonable choice but lacks direct routing.

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