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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the output components (current values, week-over-week changes, z-scores, corridor mapping) and defines the pressure scoring bands. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or failure modes, but provides solid context about the returned data.

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 front-loaded with the core function, followed by helpful index definitions and scoring thresholds. Slightly long but every sentence contributes value.

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 no-input tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what data is returned and how to interpret pressure scores. It lacks exact response field names but is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information but none is needed.

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 freight rate pressure scores for specific indices (WCI, SCFI, BDI, CRB), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the indices and the focus on pressure scores rather than raw observations.

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 implies usage for freight rate pressure analysis via its specific scope, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_freight_rate_observations or get_freight_transportation_index. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided.

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