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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful access context beyond that: the composite and regime are always free without a key, two category scores are free, one email returns four, and Pro returns all six. It says nothing about refresh cadence or staleness, which keeps it from 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by access tiers and then usage triggers. Every sentence carries information; the only mild redundancy is restating the category names already implied by 'six category scores'.

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 carries the return-value burden and does it well by enumerating the composite, regime, and six categories. Access tiering is disclosed, and a read-only macro data call needs little else for correct invocation.

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 optional topic parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'macro = the US macro-health composite (the only topic)'. The description adds no syntax or format detail about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the exact resource (US macro-health composite 0–100, regime, and six named category scores), so an agent knows precisely what data comes back. No verb is stated, but for a retrieval tool the resource identity is unambiguous. None of the sibling tools cover macro, so there is nothing to confuse it with.

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 explicit trigger phrases ("how is the US economy", "macro regime", "risk-on or risk-off") that map directly to the tool's domain. There are no competing siblings to route away from, so no exclusions are needed. It does not state when NOT to use it, keeping this just below a 5.

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