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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful scope context ('whole-market' vs per-company) and semantics for each enum option, but does not disclose output format or behavior beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The market-level scope is front-loaded, followed by a compact definition of every enum option and a practical usage note. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter enum tool with a read-only annotation, the description covers scope, all parameter values, and when to use it. It does not describe the return shape, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap for a tool this simple.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the 'name' parameter. It successfully defines all four enum values ('macro', 'energy', 'crypto', 'rate_expectations') with concrete meanings, going well beyond their bare labels.

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 identifies a specific resource ('whole-market gauge') and distinguishes it from per-company tools. It enumerates the four distinct signals, but it never explicitly states a verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', relying on 'gauge' and tool name to imply the action.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use these for the backdrop a single name is trading against.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not name sibling alternatives or state explicit exclusion conditions.

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