trade_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only data retrieval operation, but does not disclose details such as data limits, pagination, or how commodities are returned (since no commodity parameter exists in the schema). The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 that is direct and free of unnecessary words or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core function without filler.

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?

For a tool with four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides only a high-level overview of what is returned ('by commodity'). It does not explain the structure of the response, how commodities are identified, or any constraints (e.g., available years). While sufficient for basic understanding, more detail would improve completeness.

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 already describes all four parameters (reporter, partner, year, flow) with clear definitions and an enum for flow. The description adds value by stating that the output includes 'import/export values by commodity', which clarifies the granularity of the result beyond what the schema mentions. This is a meaningful supplement even with 100% schema coverage.

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's purpose: retrieving bilateral trade data (import/export values by commodity) between two countries. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('bilateral trade data'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like trade_balance (overall balance) or trade_partners (list of partners).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternative trade tools such as trade_commodity, trade_timeseries, or trade_partners. The description does not mention when not to use it or specify prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling list alone.

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