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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, it discloses meaningful behavioral details: PBoC is included only when a fresh Mako-curated publication is available, scope is surfaced through scope/scope_note, and US net liquidity is retained as a sub-component. It also describes the summary_only return shape. No contradiction with 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 well-structured: the core read is front-loaded, then returns, field semantics, provenance, and the parameter are covered in order. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and the length is justified by the number of financial-condition pillars and caveats.

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?

With one optional parameter, readOnly annotations, and an output schema available, the description is complete for selection and invocation. It covers what the read contains, how returns are organized, how G4/G3 scope is indicated, the China provenance caveat, and the summary_only option. Nothing needed for correct use is missing.

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 describes summary_only with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the parameter's purpose as 'the lightweight one-line read used in regime composition', which tells an agent when to set it. It does not add syntax details, but the usage context is a meaningful upgrade.

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 'Full financial conditions read', a specific verb plus resource, and immediately enumerates the pillars: global liquidity, real yields, HY/IG spreads, DXY, and VIX. This clearly separates it from narrower siblings like get_china_liquidity and from get_conditions_history by framing it as the current full read. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 concrete usage context, especially for summary_only:true, which is called 'the lightweight one-line read used in regime composition'. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing, but the intended use case is clear.

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