Trade tradability check

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful extra context: results are compiled regulatory guidance, not legal advice, and the user should confirm with a national regulator. It also discloses the non-legal nature of the matrix.

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 core action and return behavior, then add a necessary caveat. No wasted words; the legal disclaimer earns its place given the domain.

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 low-complexity read-only lookup with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the inputs, the output, and the operational limitation. The agent has enough to call it correctly without further elaboration.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's supplied/bought wording loosely maps to the listing_type supply/demand distinction, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already documents for country, product, and listing_type.

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 exact purpose: checking whether a commodity can be supplied/bought in a jurisdiction using OilFlow's regulatory matrix. It also names the return shape (allowed true/false plus blockers), which separates it from listing-oriented siblings like regulatory_countries.

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 gives a clear usage context: use this when you need a tradability determination for a specific country/product combination. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer regulatory_countries or regulatory_products, but the conditions for use are unambiguous.

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