get_yearly_trades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full burden. It notes historical data back to 1996 but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, data security, or what the summaries contain (e.g., total volume, price). This is insufficient for a read tool without annotations.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 should clarify return structure, but it only vaguely mentions 'summaries'. For a tool with one parameter, it is adequate but could improve by describing fields (e.g., 'total trade volume, average price'). Sibling differentiation is also limited.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter (item_code) described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('yearly wholesale market trade summaries'), and the domain ('agricultural product'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_daily_trades by specifying yearly granularity.

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 yearly historical summaries (since 1996) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like get_monthly_trades or get_weekly_trades. No explicit exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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