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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful output semantics not present in any annotation: each component carries value, period, and the deterministic rule applied, and history is optional. It stops short of stating freshness or how the deterministic rules are chosen.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core deliverable (overall level) before the component breakdown and the optional history. Every clause carries information; it is only slightly dense to parse without structural markers.

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?

There is no output schema, so the burden of describing return structure falls on the description, and it discharges that well by enumerating levels, dimensions, and per-component fields. Only the lack of usage context relative to the many sibling read tools keeps it below a 5.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage including range 0-365 and the default of 0. The description corroborates that daily level history is optional but adds no format or granularity detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 names a specific resource (recession risk thermometer) and enumerates the exact output shape: overall level with three possible values, headline, and three dimensions (current state, momentum, forward pressure). This goes well beyond restating the title. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_panorama or get_indicator_latest, which is the only gap.

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?

There is no statement of when an agent should call this versus alternatives such as get_panorama, get_pillars, or get_indicator_latest. Usage is only implied by the noun 'thermometer'. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing guidance.

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