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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable context: data sources (FRED/BLS/BEA), monthly update cadence, history depth to 1960, and the mention of sub-fields. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core result, followed by explicit use cases and update frequency. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description explains the score's composition, data sources, sub-fields, and update frequency, which is sufficient for a simple read-only retrieval tool. The `days` parameter is well-documented in the schema, and with no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema description covers the single `days` parameter at 100% with details about history length, Gold tier requirement, and fallback behavior. The main description does not discuss parameters, but with full schema coverage this is adequate. Baseline 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 clearly states it 'Returns a 0-100 US macro economic health score' and specifies the composition (Z-scored CPI inflation, unemployment, GDP growth) and sub-fields. This specific verb+resource description distinguishes it from other macro tools and leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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?

The description explicitly lists when to call the tool: 'when the user asks about US economic health, recession risk, macro conditions, inflation, jobs, or the business cycle, or when timing portfolio shifts.' It provides clear usage context but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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