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

Annotations indicate read-only (readOnlyHint: true), and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: methodology (NLP over GDELT news sentiment, official trade alerts, entity-specific risk events), historical depth (daily since 1998), update cadence, and the output fields returned. No contradictions with annotations; the read-only claim is consistent with 'Returns.'

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 information-dense sentences plus a three-word update note. The parenthetical methodology adds value without bloat, and the use-case sentence is practical. No filler.

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 read-only scoring tool with one optional parameter, the description covers output shape, methodology, update cadence, and trigger scenarios. The schema covers the parameter; no output schema exists but output fields are named. Adequate for an agent to select and invoke confidently.

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 optional parameter `days` is fully documented in the input schema (min/max, behavior, and Gold-tier requirement), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter details, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource: a 0-100 supply-chain disruption-risk score with concrete output components (score, trend, confidence, top_drivers). It differentiates this tool by domain (supply-chain risk) even though sibling names are opaque.

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?

Provides explicit call conditions, enumerating user intents that should trigger this tool: supply-chain risk, supplier/trade-lane disruption, geopolitical logistics exposure, port stability, and timing decisions (diversification, safety stock, pull-forwards). It does not name alternative tools or give when-not guidance, but the call triggers are unusually specific.

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