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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (directional assessment, confidence, driver explanation, timeframe), the cost model ('FREE — no API key needed'), and the upstream data sources. However it does not state whether this is read-only in effect, whether results are cached/real-time, or how stale the event data may be.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and return contents in the opening sentences. Most sentences earn their place, though 'JSON format. FREE — no API key needed.' is slightly promotional filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain returns and it does so adequately (direction, confidence, driver, timeframe). For a zero-required-param read tool this is close to complete; only the freshness/update semantics are missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented there, including 'Omit for all impacts'. The description's 'filter by specific asset to see all factors affecting it' adds only marginal meaning over the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Map geopolitical events and crises to specific asset impacts', plus what it returns. An agent can tell it apart from most siblings, though 'combines crisis analysis, news data, alpha screening, and commodity scoring' overlaps with get_commodity_signals and get_trading_signals without explicitly drawing the boundary.

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?

Offers implied usage ('Filter by specific asset to see all factors affecting it') but never says when to pick this over get_intelligence_briefing, get_commodity_signals, or get_events. No explicit when/when-not or prerequisites.

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