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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the composite methodology, the 36-month rolling window, monthly update cadence, and the gold-tier requirement for history via the schema. It does not go into pagination or exact value formats, but with annotations covering safety, this is above average.

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 a single dense sentence followed by a terse 'Updates: monthly.' It packs in formula, fields, use cases, and cadence without fluff. The structure is slightly front-loaded with the result and methodology before use cases, which is effective.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description lists the key return fields (trend, confidence, pressure_level, top_drivers, component fields) and the underlying methodology. It also captures the optional history behavior through the schema description. This is nearly complete for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter 'days' is fully described in the schema. The description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already carries the meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Returns a 0-100 food-price pressure score' and enumerates the exact components (FRED Food CPI + Farm Products PPI YoY, weighted z-scores) and output fields. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many adw.* siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'food inflation, grocery or agricultural commodity prices, farm-cost pass-through, or consumer food-price pressure' and even strategic uses like timing forward contracts. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool.

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