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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly and destructive annotations by explaining classification semantics, the difference between surprise and vs_consensus, the directional meaning of hot/cool, the n/a case, and the provenance age measurement behavior. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 by preventing misinterpretation. It front-loads the core resource and timing, then explains output semantics and edge cases without redundancy or 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 single-optional-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers timing, absence semantics, field explanations, interpretation pitfalls, and idempotent behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation or result interpretation appears 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents week_ending format and default. The description adds meaningful parameter-adjacent semantics: the Friday anchoring, the freshness caveat, and the fact that consensus_provenance.age_days is measured at week_ending rather than call time. This goes beyond the baseline but does not redefine the parameter itself.

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 clearly identifies the resource: past week's data releases with an H.4.1 net liquidity update. It is specific about scope and timing, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as get_event_calendar or get_data_health, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 provides clear usage context by stating the tool is anchored to Friday and most current when run Friday morning or later. It also advises that re-asking for an earlier week yields stable age_days values. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool routing.

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