"Media outlets have been reporting the Peterson Institute’s estimate of $1 trillion in higher global output as a result of the deal, but what’s most interesting about the deal is that it happened only because the member states decided to focus on a narrow slice of the issues under discussion in the Doha Round."
This agreement could end up being a pretty big deal for a few reasons (but one of which isn't the $1 trillion; that's fairly small as a fraction of total world output, though not nothing): 1. trade deals create winners and losers; it will be important to watch who loses, especially if it's the poor. 2. If this changes the psychology of the WTO, and makes future agreements more likely, that trend could end up mattering quite a bit in the long run.
Now, the "narrow"-ness of the deal... It's still the tale of the strong dictating to the weak: U.S.' (and allies') policies of industrial farming, coupled with large government subsidies, have driven trade partners' farmers out of business, and made many countries quite reliant on us for food (purchase, and/or aid). That hasn't changed (some aspects may make it worse; others, better), and continues to be one of the most contentious issues.