trade_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns the trade balance, top partners, and a trend, and cites the data source. However, it does not mention potential caveats like seasonality, data latency, or the exact response format, but for a simple read-only data retrieval, this is reasonably transparent.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third cites the data source. It is front-loaded with the main action and is free of unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: it explains the primary output (trade balance with partners and trend) and when to use it. The example queries and source citation add sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing to explain in the description. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool, and the description does not need to add parameter details.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clearly defined resource ('current AU trade balance') and explicitly states the components (exports minus imports, top partners, surplus/deficit trend). This makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like economic_dashboard or macro_snapshot_state that cover broader economic indicators.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance by giving concrete example questions ('is Australia running a trade surplus?', 'who are Australia's biggest trade partners?'). This helps an agent select the tool versus alternatives, and the mention of the ABS source implies it is specifically for current trade statistics.

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