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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a read-only intent via 'Get' and 'Returns,' describes the exact output fields, and explicitly states the cost of 2 credits per call. It does not discuss data freshness or update cadence, but no side effects or destructive actions are implied.

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 four sentences with no filler; the first sentence states the core action, followed by scope, output, and cost. The commodity list is long but necessary for disambiguation, and the credit cost is appropriately front-loaded in the final sentence.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it does, which commodities it covers, what fields each result contains, and the per-call cost. Nothing required to invoke 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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage by default, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by enumerating the commodity scope and the precise response fields, which is more than the empty schema provides.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get AI-scored trading signals for 15 raw material commodities' and enumerates all 15 commodities, leaving no ambiguity about scope. It is clearly distinct from generic siblings like get_trading_signals by explicitly limiting to raw material commodities.

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?

Provides clear invocation context: 'Use this tool for commodity-specific intelligence' and notes it is 'particularly useful for supply chain risk assessment and commodity trading decisions.' It stops short of naming alternative tools or saying when not to use it, so no formal exclusions are given.

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