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

Beyond the readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description discloses meaningful access-tier behavior: composite and regime are always free, but category score availability depends on the caller's key level. It does not describe the exact response structure or regime labels, but the access behavior is unusually transparent.

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, front-loaded with the core output, and each sentence earns its place: what the tool returns, access behavior, and when to use it. There is no fluff or redundancy beyond the intentional sibling clarification.

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 tool with one optional enum parameter, no output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description covers the output content, access limitations, and intended use cases. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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% and the single topic parameter already carries a clear description and enum. The tool description reinforces that NFL is handled elsewhere, but adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 the tool's output: a US macro-health composite (0–100), a regime call, and six category scores. It also distinguishes itself from the nfl_edge sibling by explicitly stating that NFL edges were moved there.

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 provides concrete example queries ('how is the US economy', 'macro regime', 'risk-on or risk-off') and explicitly routes NFL-related requests to the dedicated nfl_edge tool, making when-to-use and when-not-to-use clear.

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