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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: the pricing ($0.10), the cryptographic attestation with post-quantum signed receipt, and the verification URL. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and verification needs.

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?

Four sentences total with the core purpose front-loaded first, followed by use case, source, and cost/attestation details. No significant verbosity; the description earns each sentence.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, use case, source, cost, and the response content (index level and year-over-year change). It could specify the response structure more explicitly, but the given information is sufficient for the agent to decide whether to invoke the tool.

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 single 'industry' parameter has a full enum in the schema, and the description simply repeats those enum values in prose without adding extra meaning (e.g., what each industry means, data granularity per industry). Schema coverage is 0%, but the enum is self-documenting, so the description only mildly compensates for the lack of prose parameter docs.

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 states the tool returns 'BLS Producer Price Index by industry with index level and year-over-year change' and enumerates the specific industries covered (software, healthcare, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling inflation/benchmark tools. The verb+resource+scope is explicit and specific.

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?

Provides an explicit use case: 'Use for input cost benchmarking and PPI pass-through analysis.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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