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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it enumerates the return payload (counts, pulse, sparkline, diversity/conscience index, top signals) and sets an important scope boundary ('measures published attention and announced capital — not settled transactions'). It omits freshness/rate-limit details, keeping it short of a 5.

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-loaded with the trigger, followed by payload summary and routing. Three sentences, no filler, though the parenthetical expansion of the M/I/N/D acronyms is slightly redundant with the earlier enumeration.

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 describing the return shape and scope caveat, and params are fully covered by the schema. An agent has enough to invoke and interpret it, though freshness/recency of the trailing window is not stated.

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%, so both parameters (days, disease) are already documented. The description only alludes to a 'trailing window' and adds no syntax or semantics for the oddly-named 'disease' filter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieving the AI-economy 'mind signal' covering the four capitals (Material, Intelligence, Network, Diversity) and their concentration. It also names what it returns, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling get_trends_signal and get_batch_signals without opening any schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'USE WHEN the question is about the AI economy...', then gives next-step routing ('call get_trends_signal for feed shape... or get_batch_signals to pull all three signals in one round-trip'). Both the trigger condition and the alternatives are spelled out.

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