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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, but the description frames the tool as 'Inspect' and never warns that actions like withdraw, transfer, or update_drain_guard mutate or destroy state. This directly contradicts the safety profile and omits any auth, rate-limit, or irreversibility context.

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 definition is a single sentence with no filler, but it is an unstructured list that does not front-load the action parameter or prioritize the most important usage detail. It is concise only because it omits necessary information.

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 15-action, destructive, open-world tool with an untyped params object, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition should explain action semantics and side effects. It provides only a domain list and is not complete enough to invoke safely.

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%, and the description never mentions the required action parameter, explains any of its 15 enum values, or describes the nested params object. The domain list does not map actions or fields to parameters.

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 names the economic domain and lists resource areas, but the only verb is 'Inspect', which mischaracterizes a tool whose action enum includes withdrawals, transfers, deposits, and update_drain_guard. It does not explain the multi-action structure or clearly distinguish this tool from sibling domains such as core_identity or core_comm.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose core_economic over siblings, and no indication that the required action parameter selects between reading and mutating operations. The description provides only a domain noun list, with no usage conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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