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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the data source, calculation method (z-scoring over trailing 36 months), and update frequency ('Updates: monthly'). No contradictions with annotations, and no missing destructive behavior since it is read-only.

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, information-dense sentence followed by a usage sentence. It front-loads the main output (the 0-100 score) and follows with formula, output fields, and usage triggers. Every clause adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema info.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately enumerates all return fields (trend, confidence, gap_label, breakeven_inflation_pct, core_cpi_yoy_pct, divergence_pct, divergence_z) and explains the score's interpretation. The optional 'days' parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the update frequency is stated. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 input schema has one parameter with a full description ('Optional: return a daily HISTORY series... History requires Gold tier'). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does not mention the 'days' parameter, but the schema fully handles it, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool returns a 0-100 inflation-expectations gap score with a specific formula (T10YIE minus core CPI YoY, z-scored), and lists the output fields. It distinguishes itself by specifying the exact data sources (FRED) and the output items, making it unambiguous versus sibling tools.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call when the user asks about market inflation expectations vs realized CPI, breakevens, TIPS, or Fed credibility, or when timing TIPS-vs-nominal Treasury rebalancing or inflation-hedge positioning.' This also implies when not to use it and differentiates it from alternatives.

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