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 known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the score construction (half output, half price), data source (monthly FRED data since 1916), update frequency, and the meaning of top_drivers (output-led vs price-led), which goes well 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 compact yet information-dense: two sentences plus an update frequency note. It front-loads the core output, explains composition, lists associated outputs, and provides explicit usage triggers without redundant filler. Every clause contributes meaning.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool returns (score, confidence, top_drivers, source_lineage) and the optional days-history behavior. It also states the update cadence and use cases. For a single-parameter read-only indicator, this is complete.

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 only parameter ('days'), with the schema already explaining the optional history series behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The main description doesn't describe the parameter, but that's acceptable given 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 explicitly states the tool returns a 0-100 US raw-material production stress score with clear specifics (half output leg, half price leg, z-scored monthly FRED data since 1916). It names the exact output components (confidence, top_drivers, source_lineage), making it distinct from any sibling indicator tool.

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 explicit call conditions: 'Call when the user asks about commodity input costs, raw-material shortages, mining output declines, or producer-price spikes, or when timing procurement hedges, inventory pre-buys, or futures entries.' This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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