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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description fully aligns by calling itself a read-history. It adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: provenance tags ('observed' vs 'reconstructed'), default windows, response structure with presentation/display_markdown, event/delta summaries, and the distinction between point-in-time and live data.

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 dense but every clause contributes: return contents, rate-leg nuance, tool differentiation, use-case motivation, response layout, and provenance. It could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning, but it is well organized and front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into details.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description still explains the response's important structural aspects: presentation.display_markdown, data.rows, summary.deltas, events, and provenance tags. It also covers defaults, depth, and interpretation guidance, making the tool fully callable and interpretable by an agent with no prior context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description carries no heavy burden for parameter meaning. It reinforces defaults ('Defaults to the last 12 weeks, weekly') already present in the schema, and adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema documents.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Financial-conditions read-history — a timeseries of how conditions have moved over recent weeks.' It enumerates exactly what is returned (composite, direction, pillar values, rate legs), and differentiates itself from sibling history tools by positioning itself as 'the price of risk' alongside get_regime_history and get_liquidity_history.

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 clear usage context: it is the historical complement to point-in-time reads, and it names sibling history tools and their distinct purposes ('the judgment' vs 'the flow'). It does not explicitly name a point-read alternative or state when NOT to use it, so guidance is strong but slightly implicit.

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