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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: data source (FRED/EIA), per-call pricing, the list of returned signals, and the key behavioral trait that verifiable FOMC facts are separated from forward-looking interpretation. It omits details like response format or update frequency, so not 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the use case, followed by the return list, source, and cost. The 'Example' sentence is slightly redundant with the Returns list, but it reinforces the fact-vs-interpretation distinction, so the overall structure remains efficient.

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 aggregate tool, the description covers when to use it, what it returns, source, cost, and the fact/interpretation split—enough for an agent to select and invoke it. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the exact response structure or units, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 has zero properties, so there are no parameters requiring semantic explanation. With 100% schema coverage and no params, the baseline is 4; the description appropriately avoids inventing unnecessary parameter detail.

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 opens with a specific use case—a macro agent needing a full live signal stack in one call—and enumerates the exact returned series (Fed funds, 2s10s, VIX, BTC, WTI, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling single-metric tools like get_fomc_rate_probability or get_commodity_benchmark.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when a macro agent needs a full live signal stack in one call. It does not name alternatives or give exclusionary guidance, but the 'one call' framing implies it is for consolidated multi-asset needs rather than individual benchmarks.

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