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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the tool returns the latest reading plus change from the prior period, which is content rather than behavioral. No rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behaviors are disclosed, but given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the resource categories and then the return value. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant phrasing. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool has only 2 optional parameters and no output schema, and the description provides a high-level overview of what is returned (latest reading and change). It also conveys the scope of indicators, which is sufficient for an agent to know when to call it. The lack of an explicit response structure is acceptable given the discoverability via filter, and the overall complexity is low.

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?

Schema describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including the 'history' number with min/max and 'include_keys' array with filtering semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers parameter meaning.

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 explicitly states the tool returns US economic indicators across multiple categories (rates, jobs, growth, energy, metals, agriculture, and markets) with the latest reading and prior-period change. It clearly distinguishes itself from stock-specific tools by stating it provides market context, not a single-stock signal, which satisfies specific verb+resource+scope.

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 when to use the tool by positioning it as providing macro market context rather than single-stock analysis. It explicitly excludes a use case ('not a signal about any one stock'), but does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when/when-not criteria. This gives clear context with an exclusion, scoring a 4.

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