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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false); the description goes well beyond them, disclosing the exact return object, the reason for retirement, backward-compatibility intent, and the critical semantic that 'absent' must never be read as a zero flow.

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?

Front-loads the essential RETIRED status and the absence-is-not-zero warning efficiently. Some trailing content (data_contract boilerplate, 'information not financial advice', the server's bounded-question policy and CSV pointer) is generic server-level text rather than tool-specific, slightly diluting focus.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden and does so completely: return shape, semantics of the absent value, alternatives, and callability for legacy integrations are all covered.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by stating it takes no arguments and giving an empty example {}, but adds no param-level detail because there is none to add.

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 unambiguously that this is a retired tool that serves no flow figures and returns { available: false }. The verb+resource situation is fully resolved: the agent learns not to call it for data and exactly what a call returns, and it names the live-signal siblings by name.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not (retired, do not read absence as zero) and lists concrete alternatives (scan_signals, get_sovereign_reserves, get_treasury_holdings, get_hiring_signal, get_network_signal, get_daily_brew). Nothing is left for the agent to infer about routing.

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