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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: monthly updates, data sources (FRED/BEA), and the 40% China import share weighting. No contradictions found.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: output and methodology, when to use, and update cadence. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

For a read-only data tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return fields, methodology, update frequency, and usage scenarios. It lacks only explicit return-format examples, but the described output fields suffice for invocation.

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 single optional 'days' parameter is fully described in the schema, including the Gold tier requirement. The main description does not repeat parameter details, so it neither adds nor detracts from the schema.

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 ('Returns') and identifies a concrete resource: a 0-100 US supply-chain geopolitical risk index. It details the index composition and outputs, making it clearly distinct from the many numbered 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?

The description provides explicit trigger phrases ('asks about supply chain risk, China dependence, decoupling, reshoring, tariffs, or trade-war exposure') and practical scenarios. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the guidance 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.