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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint: true; the description adds the constraint that 'context' requires entity, which is a logical prerequisite. It does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, default limits, or error behavior, but the existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. Overall, it contributes some context beyond the annotation but not rich behavioral detail.

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 compact, well-organized with a bulleted list, and front-loads the main statement. Every sentence contributes value—the aliases, the kinds, and the pointer to get_indicator—with no 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers the essential usage scenarios (economic vs. context), the required entity for context, and a key alternative. It does not mention edge cases like null entity with context, but that is a minor gap given the clear guidance already present.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by thoroughly explaining the 'kind' parameter with aliases and meanings, and clarifying the entity requirement. It does not explicitly describe 'limit' or the full semantics of 'entity', but the core distinguishing parameter is well-covered.

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 clear purpose ('macro backdrop') and elaborates with two specific kinds ('economic' and 'context'), each with concrete examples and aliases. It further distinguishes itself from get_indicator, making it easy for an agent to understand what this tool returns vs. alternatives.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use a different tool ('For a company's own price technicals use get_indicator') and explains that the 'context' kind requires the entity parameter. However, it does not enumerate all other sibling tools or exhaustively state when NOT to use it, leaving some inference for an agent comparing with other macro-related tools.

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