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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states that the tool 'Returns' a broad set of economic data sources, which is the key behavioral trait for a read-only data retrieval tool. The absence of caveats about timing or limitations is acceptable given the simple nature of the tool, though slightly more detail could improve transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated in the first sentence and supporting data categories in the same sentence. The second sentence adds audience context without redundancy. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's scope and utility.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers what the tool returns (specific indices and forecasts) and who should use it. The data source enumeration provides enough context for an agent to know whether this tool fits a request for macro-economic supply chain indicators.

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 the schema is empty. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not need to explain parameter details. The description focuses on the return contents rather than inputs, which aligns with the lack of 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 clearly states the tool 'Get key economic indicators affecting supply chain costs and conditions' and enumerates specific data categories (Federal Reserve data, PPI, GSCPI, EIA forecasts). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like commodity_price_monitor or get_energy_forecast, which focus on narrower datasets.

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 identifies target users ('supply chain strategists, procurement leaders, and economic analysts') and the intended use case ('macro backdrop for supply chain planning'). While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, the context makes it clear that this is the macro-level overview tool, and siblings handle specific niches.

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