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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: data source (FRED PCE), frequency (monthly), history length, and returned fields. It also notes 'Updates: monthly,' which is useful. It doesn't cover edge cases like potential data lags, but it goes beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured: it opens with the core output and method, then gives usage guidance, and ends with update frequency. Each sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the information conveyed.

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 simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers what it returns, when to use it, and its update cadence. The only minor miss is not repeating the Gold tier requirement, but that is already in the schema, so it isn't a gap.

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%, and the schema fully describes the optional 'days' parameter including tier requirement and fallback behavior. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 US consumption momentum score with specific calculation details (monthly FRED PCE, trailing-mean deviation, history to 1962) and lists the output fields. It also provides explicit call conditions, distinguishing it from generic data 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?

The description gives concrete use cases ('when the user asks about US consumer spending... when timing revenue forecasts') and even names relevant topics. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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