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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior context: 'no auth required' and 'Values in US$ thousand for value indicators', plus data provenance (wits.worldbank.org). It does not cover rate limits, coverage gaps, or how missing partner/product defaults are resolved (though defaults are in the schema).

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 front-loading the source and the returned fields; no filler. Slightly packed, but 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, the description needn't explain return shape; it covers purpose, source, units, and auth. Missing is guidance on data coverage/limitations vs sibling trade tools (comtrade, wto, oecd trade), which would strengthen routing.

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 the schema already documents each param including defaults and examples. The description adds unit clarification for value indicators (US$ thousand) and the default partner=World, but no syntax or code semantics 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get international trade statistics from the World Bank WITS'), names the underlying source (UN Comtrade), and enumerates what's returned (export/import value, trade share, partner indicators). Distinct from sibling wits-trade.tariff.get_stats and wto.trade.* tools by naming WITS/UN Comtrade explicitly.

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 the use case (given a reporter, partner, product, year, fetch trade stats) but offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like comtrade.trade.query, wto.trade.data, or wits-trade.tariff.get_stats. No exclusions or data-coverage caveats beyond the source mention.

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