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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'without storing the request', which reinforces the read-only nature but is largely redundant. It does not disclose any additional behavioral nuances such as error handling, rate limits, or return structure, so the description provides minimal extra transparency beyond the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence with zero filler. The key action and scope are front-loaded, and the stateless qualifier is included efficiently. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite having annotations that cover safety, the description is incomplete for an agent to use correctly. It does not explain the parameters, output format, or any edge cases. With 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description leaves the agent guessing about optional inputs and return structure, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (origin_country, destination_country, material_use, product_description). It only implies that origin and destination define the corridor, but it gives no meaning for the optional parameters or their expected formats. The description entirely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clear verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('corridor-specific preflight checklist and product-risk flags'), and a scope ('corridor-specific'), which distinguishes it from generic preflight tools. It also adds a behavioral qualifier ('without storing the request') that differentiates it from stateful alternatives, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like trade_preflight or compare_preflight_quotes. The only hint is 'without storing', implying a stateless check, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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