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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds the score's composition, update frequency, history length, and the IOM fields (top_drivers, source_lineage). This gives the agent important behavioral context about data provenance and output structure.

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 two information-dense sentences plus a short update note. Every phrase contributes: the core function, the composite details, the usage contexts, and the update cadence. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return value (score range, IOM fields) and parameter behavior via the schema. It leaves the acronym 'IOM' unexplained, which may be unclear to an agent, but overall the tool is well-specified.

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% for the single 'days' parameter, which is fully explained in the schema including the Gold tier requirement. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('0-100 metals-complex stress score') with a precise definition (weekly composite z-score of gold volatility, momentum, and gold/silver ratio) and history span. This clearly distinguishes it as a precious-metals stress indicator among the many numeric 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance for gold/silver queries and hedge-sizing decisions with numerical thresholds. It does not name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use constraints, but the context is clear and actionable.

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