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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the probabilities are 'illustrative' rather than market-implied, the data source is FRED St. Louis Fed, there is a per-call cost of $0.02 USDC, and the example clarifies that outputs are conditioned on fed funds and CPI. This helps an agent set expectations about the tool's nature and limitations.

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 at around 50 words, front-loads the usage context, and includes all essential elements: purpose, caveat, example, source, and pricing. Every sentence contributes meaningful information 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (probabilities for the next three FOMC meetings), provides an example, and clarifies the source and cost. However, it does not fully specify the output structure (e.g., whether all three meetings are returned in a list or individual fields), leaving a minor ambiguity for an agent.

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 input schema is empty and there are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description cannot add parameter-level semantics because none exist; it appropriately focuses on output and usage.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Returns illustrative cut, hike, and hold probabilities for the next three FOMC meetings based on current FRED fed funds data.' It also clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling benchmarks by emphasizing it is a scenario-planning tool, not futures-implied market odds.

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 opens with explicit use cases: 'Use when providing monetary policy narrative context for a macro brief, investment committee, or CFO rate planning session.' It also gives a when-not via 'Scenario planning tool — not futures-implied market odds.' However, it does not name any alternative sibling tool, so the guidance is strong but not fully complete.

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