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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return payload (headline events with impact scores, affected sectors/assets, risk assessment, actionable implications), generation cadence (daily via Claude AI on 40+ sources), language options, and cost (10 credits per call). This is comprehensive transparency for a read-only briefing tool.

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?

Three sentences pack substantial information with minimal redundancy. Each sentence serves a distinct function: purpose, content/returns, and logistics. 'Daily' appears twice but is not problematic. Well-structured with the core purpose front-loaded. Not maximally concise due to the long list in the second sentence, but earned.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the main return elements and adding cost, generation frequency, and source count. For a single-parameter tool with straightforward invocation, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the result. Minor missing details like pagination or response format aren't critical here.

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 only parameter 'lang' is fully described in the schema (enum en/de, default 'en', description). The description mentions availability in English and German, which adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a daily AI-generated geopolitical briefing and lists the macro-level event types it covers (geopolitical, central bank, trade, sanctions, conflicts, economic data). It distinguishes from siblings like get_events or get_impact by focusing on geopolitical intelligence, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. Clear verb + resource, but sibling differentiation is implicit.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this tool to understand macro-level events that could impact markets' and describes the content and return format. It provides clear context for use but does not give when-not-to-use guidance or explicitly name alternative tools. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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