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

Goes far beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations: discloses the g4↔g3 basis-flip artifact (~$7T China component), states the window trend is computed on a constant G3 basis, reveals provenance tagging ('observed' vs 'reconstructed', ~4 months deep), and documents the 'presentation' object with pre-formatted display_markdown. No contradiction 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the long middle section earns its length — the basis-flip reading note and provenance semantics are load-bearing for correct data interpretation. It is dense rather than padded, though it could be slightly tightened without losing information.

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 tool with two optional parameters and high interpretive complexity, everything needed to call and consume it is present: defaults, response shape ('presentation', 'data.rows', 'summary'), event semantics, and the coverage-change trap. An output schema exists, and the description still pre-documents its key fields, leaving no material gap.

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 input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including the weekly/monthly enum and the default/clamp on lookback_weeks, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only restates the defaults ('Defaults to the last 12 weeks, weekly') without adding new parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Global-liquidity read-history — a timeseries of central-bank liquidity over recent weeks.' It enumerates the exact content (Fed/ECB/BoJ/PBoC decomposition, basis, supportive/neutral/draining classification) and differentiates itself as the 'History companion to get_financial_conditions,' which separates it from siblings like get_conditions_history and get_china_liquidity.

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?

Positions the tool as the 'History companion to get_financial_conditions (Chapter 1 Mode 1.5 Global Liquidity Read)' and supplies a reading note on how to interpret basis flips, giving clear contextual placement relative to the live read. It does not explicitly state when-not conditions or contrast with other history siblings (e.g., get_conditions_history, get_regime_history), leaving some selection logic to inference.

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