fca_trade_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a convenience wrapper but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, authentication needs, or performance characteristics. The only behavioral insight is the filtering action.

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 concise with two sentences and a bullet-like list of coverage areas. The first sentence states the core purpose, immediately followed by the explanatory wrapper detail. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no extraneous text.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks parameter guidance and any usage nuances (e.g., query syntax, pagination). The description adequately explains the tool's scope and filtering role but is incomplete for an agent to use it effectively without further hints.

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?

There are 2 parameters (rows and query) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention any of these parameters, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from the parameter names and defaults (e.g., 'query' is a string, but no hint about its format or allowed values). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 searches FCA trade statistics datasets, explains it's a convenience wrapper for fcsc_search_dataset filtered to the federal-customs-authority organization, and specifies it covers UAE non-oil foreign trade by HS chapter, imports, exports, and re-exports. This distinguishes it from the general search sibling tool.

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 context: it is a filtered version of fcsc_search_dataset, so it should be used when specifically needing FCA trade data. It mentions the coverage (UAE non-oil foreign trade), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives beyond the general search sibling.

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