List WTO Data Topic Categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds minimal behavioral context (that topics correspond to WTO Statistics Portal groupings) but no extra operational details like pagination or rate limits. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes helpful examples without excessive verbosity. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (topics with IDs and names) and how it relates to indicators. It doesn't mention pagination, but the presence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make this acceptable.

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% for the single 'locale' parameter, and the schema already explains it fully (English only, reserved for future). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists all WTO time-series database topic categories with numeric IDs and names, providing specific examples (World Tariff Profiles, I-TIP, etc.) and distinguishing it from related wto.trade tools by explaining how the output feeds into wto.trade.indicators.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use the topic ID in wto.trade.indicators (topic_id parameter) for filtering, which implies the tool's role in the workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like wto.trade.data or wto.trade.reporters, nor mention when not to use it.

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