Dietary Evaluate Global Trade Risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the evaluation criteria (MRL violations and reference values) but does not disclose output details, prerequisites, or side effects beyond what annotations imply. It gives some contextual value but not rich behavioral transparency.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous information. It earns its place by being efficient, although it could be more expansive without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has a complex request schema with nested objects, enums, and array constraints, yet the description provides only a high-level statement. It lacks guidance on constructing the request, interpreting jurisdictions, or understanding the risk evaluation logic, making it incomplete for operational use.

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%. The description mentions MRL violations and reference values but does not map these concepts to the request fields (chemical_identity, residue_records, contaminant_family, target_jurisdictions). It fails to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions in the schema.

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's function: 'Evaluate global trade risk across jurisdictions based on MRL violations and reference values.' The verb 'Evaluate' and specific resource 'global trade risk' with the basis on MRL violations and reference values makes it distinct from sibling export/lookup tools.

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 implies usage for trade risk assessment but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dietary_export_trade_risk_review_bundle or dietary_lookup_contaminant_legal_limits. It lacks exclusions or mentions of alternative approaches, so it only offers implied usage context.

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