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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'bounded' which hints at pagination, but that is already implied by the limit/offset parameters in the schema. No additional behavioral context is provided, such as what the indicators represent or how they are computed.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters, omitting any details about filters or expected usage. It is concise but at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 optional parameters, no required, output schema exists), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'opportunity indicators' are, how filters combine, or any constraints. It lacks essential context for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description does not mention any parameters, and the schema description coverage is 50%, so the description carries none of the burden. The schema itself documents each parameter, but the description adds no meaning beyond that. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it doesn't.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('bounded export-opportunity indicators') with filters for country and product. It is distinct from siblings like get_country_trade which focus on trade flows, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate. Still, it's clear enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and schema.

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