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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: hourly updates, the 3-day vs 30-day baseline methodology, and the output fields. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but given annotations cover the safety profile, this is solid additional disclosure.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core output and methodology, followed by explicit usage cues and an update cadence. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter), strong annotations, and complete schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, output, frequency, and use cases. It even names the output fields, compensating for the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%—the single optional 'days' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the Gold tier requirement and fallback behavior. The description itself does not mention the parameter, so it adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema; 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 global trade-disruption signal' based on GDELT news volume for tariffs, sanctions, and export bans. It names the exact output fields (disruption_score, recent_vs_baseline_ratio) and clearly distinguishes this tool from the many opaque sibling tools by its trade-disruption focus.

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 explicitly lists when to call: tariff escalation, sanctions, export bans, trade wars, supply-chain disruption risk, and procurement/timing decisions. It provides strong context but does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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