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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains what the tool returns, including current GDI score, directional trends, velocity, pillar-level momentum, and acceleration/deceleration. It doesn't mention side effects or limitations, but for a read-only analytical tool with no parameters, there is little to disclose beyond these output details.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds meaningful detail about outputs, interpretation, and use cases without repetition or fluff. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so comprehensively, covering the GDI score, comparison periods, direction, velocity, pillar momentum, and acceleration. It also includes target audience and use cases, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool provides.

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 the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per scoring guidance, a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed since no inputs exist.

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 verb and resource: 'Get trend analysis of the Global Disruption Index over time.' It further details the specific outputs (current score, 7/14/30-day comparisons, direction, velocity, pillar momentum), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on the GDI trend over time.

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 explicitly identifies use cases: 'Used by supply chain executives for weekly status briefings and by traders to time entry/exit decisions around supply chain volatility.' It also frames the tool as answering a specific question (better/worse, how fast, why). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it lacks an explicit exclusion.

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