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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds crucial operational details: the data sources, 15-min cache, $0.05 x402 payment requirement, and the nature of the AI note (factual, no trading advice). This goes well beyond the annotation and informs the agent of constraints and side effects (payment).

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 front-loaded with a clear definition, followed by output structure and contextual positioning. While it is longer than average, the additional payment info and docs URL are operationally necessary. The list-style formatting for returns aids scannability, though some redundancy exists between the prose and the returns list.

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?

The description covers all key aspects: data inputs, methodology, output components, regime/direction enum values, freshness, cache behavior, positioning, and payment requirements. The output schema exists, but the description still explains the return format in plain terms, making it highly complete for an agent.

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, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than input details, satisfying the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the tool as a KRW Macro Stress Score calculator with a specific formula (5-component signal, 120d percentile) and output structure (score, regime, direction, breakdown). It explicitly distinguishes itself from kimchi premium tools with a validation note, making its unique purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context that this is a KRW macro stress filter for trading bots and explicitly states it is not a kimchi premium predictor, offering a negative usage guideline. However, it does not directly name alternative sibling tools for comparison, only differentiates from kimchi premium.

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