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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: it performs a 'LIVE Coinbase Bazaar census we pull now', outputs 'Ed25519-signed and reproducible' data, and mentions a price/tier ($0.25 USDC, premium). This goes beyond a simple read tool and sets expectations for live data and signed output, though it doesn't cover failure modes or rate limits.

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 relatively long but front-loads the core purpose and each sentence contributes distinct value: purpose, segment list, common-error correction, live census details, reconciliation/signing, usage, and pricing. It is structurally sound without wasteful repetition, though a bit dense.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides substantial context: it states the return type (signed map), enumerates covered segments, describes census content ('resources, real unique operators, concentration, % stale'), and mentions source reconciliation and reproducibility. It lacks exact output structure details, but for a complex paid data tool it is fairly complete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (max_pages), including default and purpose. The description does not add further parameter-specific meaning; it only references the 'live census' context. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Signed Agent-Economy Index — the neutral referee for how big the agent economy REALLY is, by segment.' It specifies an action (returns a signed map) and a resource (agent economy size across named segments). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which focus on aggregate economy measurement.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use before citing any agent-economy number in a deck, report, or decision.' It also frames a corrective purpose ('correcting the common error of equating tiny x402 settlement... with the whole economy'), implicitly warning against relying on narrower data. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use them, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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