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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the data frequency ('Updates: weekly') and the temporal scope ('latest two quarters vs a 15-year baseline'). The parameter description in the schema also clarifies the Gold tier requirement for history, which supplements the tool description.

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 dense but well-organized: it leads with the core output, then explains the data source, then lists the return components, then gives explicit use cases, and ends with update cadence. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields ('trend, z_score, composite_latest_value/date, and baseline stats') and provides enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool. The presence of one optional parameter with schema coverage and readOnly annotations makes this description sufficient.

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 single parameter 'days' is fully documented in the input schema with a description covering the option to return a daily history series, the 5-year limit, and the Gold tier dependency. The tool description does not repeat or add to this, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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 ('Returns') and a precise resource: a 0-100 US small-business credit tightening score based on the Fed Senior Loan Officer Survey (FRED DRTSCIS). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by detailing the indicator's scale, source, and output components (trend, z_score, etc.).

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 states when to call the tool ('Call when the user asks about SMB lending conditions, bank credit standards, or credit-crunch risk...'), providing clear contextual triggers. It does not name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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