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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the upstream source (wits.worldbank.org) and the fact that no authentication is required, which is genuinely useful for an agent planning a call.

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 dense sentences with the resource and indicator scope front-loaded and the provenance/auth caveat last. No filler; 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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers source, indicator scope, dimensional filters, and auth requirements. Only the missing routing guidance against the sibling keeps it short of fully complete.

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 all five parameters including defaults and indicator codes are already documented in the schema; that sets the baseline at 3. The description reframes the dimensions (reporter, partner, product/sector, one or more years) and explains what the indicator families mean, but adds no syntax, code, or default detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb (Get) plus a precisely scoped resource (import tariff statistics from World Bank WITS/UNCTAD TRAINS), with the exact indicator families enumerated (MFN and applied simple/weighted averages, max rates, duty-free shares). An agent can distinguish this from the near-name sibling wits-trade.trade.get_stats on subject matter alone.

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 through its scope (reporter/partner/product/year dimensions), and the no-auth note helps, but it never states when to pick this over the sibling wits-trade.trade.get_stats or any exclusion conditions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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