get_top_trade_partners

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It indicates a read operation returning a ranking with trade volumes, but does not disclose behavior for invalid inputs, data freshness, or result limits. Basic transparency is achieved.

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 extremely concise, using a short sentence and bullet-like parameter list. No redundant information, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more detail on the return format and edge cases. It only states 'Ranking der wichtigsten Handelspartner mit Handelsvolumen', which is adequate but not fully complete. Could be improved by specifying the ranking order or data structure.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It provides clear explanations for each parameter: 'Land' for country, 'Jahr der Daten' for year, 'import oder export' for flow, and 'Anzahl Top-Partner' for limit. This effectively compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns top trade partners for a country, with a specific verb ('Gibt zurück') and resource. It is distinct from siblings like 'get_country_trade_stats' (broader stats) and 'search_suppliers_by_country' (supplier search). However, no explicit differentiation is made.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_trade_flow' or 'get_country_trade_stats'. The description lacks contextual exclusions or recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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