usitc_trade_data

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns trade values, quantities, and product descriptions, which provides useful output transparency. It does not disclose limits or defaults, but the annotation lowers the burden.

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?

Two sentences that front-load the primary purpose, then list search dimensions and output. No redundant content or unnecessary elaboration.

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 description covers the core purpose and output, while the schema handles parameter details. It omits potential limitations (e.g., whether parameters are required or result limits), but given the straightforward query nature and annotations, it is adequately complete.

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 four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description merely lists the parameter types without adding extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and identifies the resource ('U.S. import/export trade statistics from the USITC DataWeb'). It clearly states the search dimensions (HTS code, partner country, year, trade type), distinguishing it from other trade-related tools by source and scope.

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 a clear use case for querying USITC trade data, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with similar tools like bea_intl_services_trade. The context is clear enough for the intended purpose.

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