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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: it discloses upstream sources (BACI, UN Comtrade, IMF commodity prices, weekly ship tonnage), the freshness of each layer (latest BACI year vs live monthly y/y signals), and the threshold that defines coverage (US$5bn+). It does not state latency, licensing, or rate-limit behavior, and read-only status is only implied by the retrieval framing.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope in the first clause, and the actionable input instruction sits at the end where it reads naturally. The middle sentence is a dense, comma-chained enumeration of return fields that is informative but heavy; a bulleted structure would have been tighter, though little content is truly filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain both coverage and returns, and it does so thoroughly, including units (US$ bn, tonnes, US$/tonne) and time basis. Minor gaps remain on response shape (how rows are structured or ordered) and on default behavior when 'product' is omitted beyond 'largest groups'.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 2-digit/4-digit/name-fragment distinction. The description's examples ('27', '2709', 'crude') add only marginal clarity, and the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in the description at all beyond the schema's own 'Rows of exporters/importers/headings' note.

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 resource and scope: 'World trade by product (HS 2022)' covering 96 HS chapters and all HS 4-digit headings above US$5bn in world exports. It then enumerates the exact payload (exports, top exporters/importers, share, tonnes, US$/tonne, bilateral flows, HS6 lines, IMF price, monthly signals), which separates it from siblings like get_trade or get_sectors without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit invocation modes: omit 'product' for the group list, or supply an HS code or name fragment, including worked examples ('27', '2709', 'crude'). It does not, however, say when to prefer this over get_trade or get_aggregate, so there is clear context but no stated alternatives or exclusions.

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