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

With readOnlyHint=true, the description adds useful context beyond annotations: data source (FRED), update frequency (monthly), and history depth (since 1960). It doesn't contradict annotations and gives the agent a sense of data freshness and coverage.

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?

The description is dense but well-structured, packing the formula, output fields, use cases, and update frequency into two sentences. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description lists all output fields (score, trend, confidence, etc.) and contextualizes the data source and update frequency. It's complete enough for correct invocation, though it could elaborate on what 'aspiration_spread_pct' means, but the formula helps.

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 only parameter 'days' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including its optional nature, range, and Gold tier requirement. The main description adds no extra parameter details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as returning a consumer aspiration-premium index with a specific formula and output fields, making its purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings, but the level of detail compensates.

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?

It provides explicit scenarios for when to use the tool, such as 'brand pricing power' and 'timing price increases', which is clear context. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls 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.