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 valuable behavioral context: it returns official-source headline rows, includes lightweight keyword-derived affected_indicators and sentiment fields when classifiable, and discloses that non-USD currencies return subscription_required with a subscribe link. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by use-case context, return-field details, supported currencies, and access notes. It is slightly long but every sentence carries useful information; the currency list and access note are necessary for correct invocation.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns, when to use it, supported inputs, and access restrictions. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly describe pagination behavior beyond the offset parameter, but the schema covers that.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context about the return fields (affected_indicators, sentiment) and access behavior, but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('recent official central-bank news and press-release headlines for a currency'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing official-source headlines and currency scoping. It also lists supported currencies, making the tool's scope 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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'when a report needs headline context for central-bank policy, inflation, employment, GDP, trade, fiscal, energy, or commodity narratives.' It also provides access guidance (USD free, others require subscription), which helps an agent decide whether to call it or route to subscription-related siblings.

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