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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is free, machine-readable, and intended as a snapshot, which implies a read-only operation. But it does not explicitly describe side effects, authentication requirements, or response structure beyond the content list.

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 short and front-loaded, with the useful 'Free' qualifier and a clear content list. The closing phrase 'The reason to come back' is slightly promotional and does not add selection value, but overall it is efficient.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete because it lists the snapshot's components. It could say more about the machine-readable format or response shape, but the main contents are 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 clearly identifies this as a weekly machine-readable snapshot of the agent economy and enumerates its main contents (index coverage, AGX benchmark, categories, markets, demands, movers). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_market or get_feed, but the purpose is specific enough to distinguish the resource.

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 phrase 'poll weekly' and 'The reason to come back' imply recurring use, giving some usage context. However, it does not state when to choose this over siblings such as get_market, get_feed, or get_market_category, so routing guidance is only implied.

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