get_trade_policy_impacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states policies persist and modify GDI risk scores, and each includes GDI pillar, score modifier, effective date, and source event. It implies read-only behavior via 'get' but does not detail authentication, rate limits, or error handling.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph of three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, adds behavioral context, and identifies use cases. Every sentence adds value without 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 no parameters or output schema, the description is quite complete, covering content, persistence, use cases, and differentiation from news alerts. It could optionally mention data freshness or pagination, but the current detail suffices for effective tool selection.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining the output includes affected GDI pillar, score modifier, effective date, and source event, earning a baseline 4.

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 active trade policy actions impacting supply chain risk, listing specific types (tariffs, sanctions, export controls, etc.) and distinguishes itself from news alerts by noting persistence as long as the policy is in effect.

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 specifies target users (procurement teams, compliance officers, supply chain strategists) and contexts (tariff exposure, sanctions tracking, sourcing adaptation). It contrasts with news alerts that expire, but does not explicitly list when not to use this tool versus the many sibling tools.

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