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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes well beyond them with a rate limit (60/min per IP), a data-freshness cadence (at most once per business day), and the default time anchor. These are operationally relevant traits an agent cannot get from the 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?

Output shape is front-loaded, followed by usage, default, safety, limits, and freshness in that order. Every sentence carries distinct information; the only near-redundancy is restating read-only/no-side-effects already in annotations, which is minor.

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 tool with an output schema, annotations, and full schema coverage, the definition supplies everything needed: scope, alternative, default window, rate limit, and refresh cadence. 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents week_ending's pattern, the omit-default, and Sunday anchoring, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the clarifying fact that the default week runs Monday to Sunday, which sharpens what 'closed week' means beyond the schema wording.

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 precise verb (return) and resource (one plain-Spanish sentence per indicator for a closed week, plus the week's permalink) and enumerates the indicators covered. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_series, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('quick how did the Argentine economy do this week overview') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('use get_series for exact values'). No inference required.

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