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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose two useful traits: a 30-minute refresh cadence and that no API key is required ('FREE'). It implies a read operation via 'Returns' but never states read-only/exact behavior beyond that, so it falls short of a 5.

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, then the interpretation bands, regions, cadence, and cost. Dense but every sentence (bands, regions, refresh, free) adds actionable information; it is slightly run-on but not wasteful.

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 the return shape, and it does cover the 0-100 scale, regime values, and per-region breakdown. The structure of the 'list of active geopolitical crises' is left unspecified, a minor gap for a zero-parameter tool.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description's scoring bands (0-30=CALM ... 70-100=CRITICAL) describe output interpretation rather than inputs, so no parameter gap exists.

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 ('Returns global market risk index 0-100') and enumerates the payload (geopolitical crises, market regime, per-region scores), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. The scoping is concrete enough to separate it from siblings like get_market_regime and get_commodity_signals.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus get_market_regime, get_intelligence_briefing, or the sector/commodity siblings. It describes the payload but gives no usage context, triggers, or exclusions.

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