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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: conditional PBoC inclusion, G4 vs G3 basis, US net liquidity sub-component, and Mako-curated provenance fields. This gives an agent a realistic picture of how the result may vary by data availability without contradicting the 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it lists components, explains conditional behavior, states the return shape, clarifies scope fields, and gives parameter guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and packs necessary nuance without filler.

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 complex read tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, this description is complete. It explains the data composition, the G4/G3 conditional logic, provenance reporting, the composite/driver return shape, and the summary_only behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already documents summary_only with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why summary_only matters as the lightweight one-line read used in regime composition, and by contrasting it with the full read. This is useful contextual semantics beyond the schema's boolean definition.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a 'full financial conditions read' encompassing liquidity, yields, spreads, DXY, and VIX. It goes well beyond the title by enumerating exact components and the G4/G3 distinction, making it clearly distinguishable from financial siblings like get_china_liquidity and get_macro_regime.

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 gives clear context on when to use the lightweight summary variant ('used in regime composition'), but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over related siblings or when not to use it. Usage context is implied by the feature description rather than explicitly carving out alternatives.

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