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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the aggregation of multiple contexts and the async execution capability, which is useful beyond annotations, but it does not disclose return format, latency, or other behavioral nuances.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds important execution context. Every word contributes value.

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 moderate complexity (many data sources but one parameter), the description is largely complete: it lists all component types and the async capability. It does not describe the structure of the briefing output, but with a simple schema and good annotations, this is acceptable. A short note on output format would make it a 5.

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 fully covers the single 'currency' parameter with description and examples (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates 'for a currency' without adding extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('macro briefing for a currency'), and lists the component data sources. It clearly communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling macro tasks like macro_research_pack_task or macro_war_room_task.

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 implies a use case: generating a compact brief that integrates many data types. It mentions async execution support but provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, and there is no 'use this instead of...' language.

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