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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the Liquidity column's two non-market step reasons, the coverage flip and China-leg publication lag, provenance tagging (observed vs reconstructed), depth-limitation, and the presentation object structure. It also warns against misreading the Liquidity column and points to a safer alternative. 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?

The description is dense but well-organized: it front-loads the purpose, then explains the distinction, then the critical Liquidity warning, then the response format and provenance. While it is long, every sentence carries substantive information, especially the caveat about the Liquidity column. It could be slightly more scannable with bullet points, but it earns its length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—two parameters, a tricky column, provenance semantics, and a presentation object—the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, how to interpret the risky field, how to avoid pitfalls, the alternative tool, and the output structure. The output schema exists, so return-value details are covered elsewhere. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 covers both parameters with descriptions: interval has 'Sample cadence (default weekly)' and lookback_weeks has 'How many weeks of history to cover (default 12, clamped 1–52)'. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond echoing the defaults ('Defaults to the last 12 weeks, weekly'). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Macro regime read-history — a timeseries of how the regime and its drivers have moved over recent weeks.' It enumerates the exact columns (regime color, business-cycle quadrant, growth + inflation class, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes it from a comparison of two point reads and from get_liquidity_history. This makes the tool's function and scope unambiguous relative to its siblings.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'Provides the observed history behind a

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