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 transparency burden. It explains the persistence behavior ('persist as long as the policy is in effect') and the impact on GDI risk scores, plus what each policy includes (pillar, score modifier, effective date, source event). This goes beyond a simple read-only hint, though it omits any mention of response format or potential edge cases.

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 adding value: purpose, persistence distinction, and output details plus user personas. It is front-loaded and free of 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 output schema, the description compensates by describing what each policy includes (affected GDI pillar, score modifier, effective date, source event). It also clarifies the persistence behavior that distinguishes it from other signal types, making it sufficiently complete for a no-parameter read tool.

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, and the input schema is empty. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter syntax but does not need to. It clearly describes the output content, which satisfies the spirit of parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Get active trade policy actions currently impacting supply chain risk' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It enumerates the policy types (tariffs, sanctions, export controls) and explicitly distinguishes itself from news alerts that expire, making it clear this tool covers persistent policy adjustments.

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 directly contrasts with news alerts: 'Unlike news alerts that expire after 72 hours, policy adjustments persist as long as the policy is in effect.' It also names primary user personas (procurement teams, compliance officers, supply chain strategists) and their use cases, effectively communicating when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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