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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses a critical dependency (FRED API configuration), the data source (FRED St. Louis Fed), update frequency (daily), and cost ($0.02 USDC). It does not detail error behavior if FRED is not configured, but overall it provides substantial transparency.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary use case, then lists the data returned, provides an illustrative example, and ends with source, update frequency, and cost. Every sentence contributes value without 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?

The description covers the main purpose, data points, an example output, source, update cycle, cost, and a dependency. However, it omits an explanation of the signal_type parameter, does not provide a full output format specification (only an example), and does not differentiate from closely related siblings. Given no output schema, these gaps reduce completeness.

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 only parameter, signal_type, is completely undocumented in both the schema (0% coverage) and the description. The description does not mention what values it accepts, its purpose, or whether it is optional. Since the schema provides no guidance, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without any semantic information about the parameter.

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 it returns a macro environment snapshot with specific data points (Fed funds rate, Treasury yields, CPI, PCE, employment) and identifies concrete use cases (trading brief, board presentation, investment committee). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_fomc_rate_probability or get_macro_playbook, but the specificity of the returned data makes its purpose distinct.

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?

The description gives explicit contexts for use (trading brief, CFO board presentation, investment committee) and implies it is for a current snapshot. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, missing the 'when-not' guidance that would earn a 5.

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