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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden and handles it well. It discloses that the leading indicator has a ~2-month lag 'BY CONSTRUCTION — that is not staleness,' that each block reports its own availability, and that the term structure is a 'stress regime flag.' These are valuable behavioral nuances beyond the raw schema.

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 three well-structured sentences: the content list, the usage directive, and the critical caveat about the leading-indicator lag. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler, and the capitalization of key terms improves readability.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates the five data blocks included, explains the stress-regime flag, notes per-block availability, and preempts potential confusion about the lag. The agent can decide whether to call it based on this context alone.

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 and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed. It does clarify the content and meaning of the response, which indirectly supports the no-parameter call.

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 defines the tool as 'One call for the cross-asset state of the world' and enumerates the specific data blocks: volatility term structure, leading indicator, official-sector positioning, treasury auctions, and maritime chokepoint throughput. It also states the intended use ('Call it to frame regime before a single-name view'), making its purpose explicit and distinct from siblings.

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 provides an explicit usage context: 'Call it to frame regime before a single-name view.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. Thus, it falls short of a 5 but offers clear practical guidance.

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