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

Annotations already mark it read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: daily updates, the 40-year normalization window, and the composition of the output. It does not contradict annotations and provides details beyond what structured fields convey.

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 sentences and front-loads the key result, output fields, and use cases. It is dense but every clause adds value; slight length is justified by the return-field list and update frequency.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists all returned fields and explains the score's meaning and update cadence. It covers the main user intents and even discloses normalization methodology, making it complete for this simple one-parameter, read-only tool.

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?

The only parameter, 'days', has a full description in the input schema (including range and tier behavior), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not repeat or add parameter semantics, which is acceptable when the schema already carries the burden.

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 outcome: 'Returns a 0-100 sovereign debt refinancing pressure score' with clear scope (U.S. Treasury auction bid-to-cover and bidder-class participation) and lists exact returned fields. This clearly differentiates it from generic siblings by naming the resource and metric.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call when the user asks about Treasury auction demand, sovereign liquidity stress, refinancing cliffs, or yield-spike risk, or when timing duration changes...'. This gives clear contexts but does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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