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. The description discloses that this is an alias that delegates to list_economic_signals, which is transparent about delegation behavior. However, it doesn't describe the actual behavioral traits of the underlying operation—no return format, pagination behavior, read/write safety, or data scope. For an unannotated tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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-sentence description with zero waste. It's under-specified given the 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but as a text it is tightly written and immediately front-loads the key fact (it's an alias). The brevity is appropriate for the limited substance being communicated.

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?

This is a 2-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description only communicates 'alias of X' and leaves the agent to infer everything else about what economic signals are, what the pagination returns, and what the canonical tool does. For a tool acting as a thin alias, this is borderline acceptable, but the complete absence of behavioral or return information makes it incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the limit and offset parameters, but it does not mention them at all. However, limit/offset are common, self-explanatory pagination parameters, and with 0 required parameters and a simple numeric type, the schema itself is fairly readable. The description adds zero value beyond the schema, but the parameters are simple enough that the baseline isn't heavily penalized beyond a 3.

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 states it is a 'Backward-compatible alias for list_economic_signals.' It identifies that this is a pointer to another tool rather than its own function, and mentions the sibling tool by name. However, it doesn't clarify what economic signals actually are, what the tool returns, or what distinguishing purpose this alias serves beyond being a compatibility shim. The word 'alias' implies low intrinsic value, making the purpose only partially clear.

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?

By explicitly naming list_economic_signals as the canonical tool, the description implicitly tells the agent to use that tool when possible and only use this alias for backward compatibility. This provides meaningful usage context (prefer the canonical tool, use this for legacy callers). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the alias framing conveys the appropriate guidance.

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