trade_commodity

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description indicates a read operation ('get') with no side effects, which is reasonable. However, it omits details such as data source, update frequency, rate limits, or whether the returned data is aggregated or raw. The minimal transparency is acceptable but not thorough.

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, front-loaded sentence of 10 words. It conveys the essential information without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool has only three parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear enough overview. It lacks details on the output structure or data types, but for a straightforward data retrieval tool, the description is adequately complete without being overly verbose.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (year, reporter, commodity). The description does not add additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying the meaning of 'global' or the format of HS codes. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score 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 'Get global trade data for a specific commodity (HS code)' clearly states the action (get), the resource (global trade data), and the specific scope (a specific commodity identified by HS code). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like trade_balance, trade_flow, trade_partners, and trade_timeseries, which focus on different aspects of trade data.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it lacks information on prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The sibling tools are listed but no comparison is offered, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case from the tool name alone.

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