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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the upstream source (CEPII BACI), the HS 6-digit granularity, return units (tonnes and US$ per kg), that it covers the latest year plus a yearly trend, and the default-to-top-products fallback.

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?

Delivered as one dense but well-organized sentence that front-loads the resource and dataset before moving to dimensions and product-input formats. Every clause carries information; the example HS codes are the only mildly expendable element but aid disambiguation.

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 no output schema, 7 parameters, and very low schema coverage, the description carries a heavy burden and mostly meets it — data source, granularity, units, fallback behavior, and input formats are all stated. The missing 'lang' semantics and any pagination/limit behavior are the only real gaps.

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 coverage is only 14% (only 'q' is documented), so the description must compensate. It does well: it clarifies q/hs accept HS codes or English words with concrete examples, and implicitly covers flow (imports/exports), partner (by partner country), and year (latest year, trend by year). Only 'lang' goes unaddressed, so it falls just short of full coverage.

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+resource+scope: international trade of one Central American country/DR by product at HS 6-digit level, sourced from CEPII BACI. It cleanly distinguishes itself from data siblings like supply_balance or search_data by naming the dataset, granularity, and flow dimension.

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?

Provides implied usage guidance by explaining what happens with and without a product ('without a product, the top products') and what dimensions can be requested (partner, year trend, flow). But it never explicitly says when to prefer this over alternatives such as supply_balance or search_data, leaving the routing implicit.

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