get_customs_trade_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the data source (news intelligence), the categories covered, and the exact fields within each event (countries, products, direction, US impact, confidence). It does not mention limitations like pagination or date ranges, but for a simple no-parameter tool, this is adequate.

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 concise, three sentences, with the primary verb and resource in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: scope, event contents, and target users. No filler or redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: event categories, specific fields, and the business context. It is comprehensive for a no-parameter tool and leaves no major questions about what the agent will receive.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it doesn't attempt to invent any. It focuses on the output content.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves customs and trade policy events, enumerates specific coverage areas (tariff changes, sanctions, export controls, etc.), and details the event fields. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on customs and trade policy events with rich event metadata.

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?

It provides clear context for use: 'Used by trade compliance teams and procurement managers to track policy risk.' This makes the intended scenario obvious, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool. The context is sufficient for most cases.

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