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 specifies that outputs include 'explicit assumptions and confidence notes' and mentions async execution via MCP Tasks. This goes beyond 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 two sentences and every clause earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the output notes and async support, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 hints at return content ('explicit assumptions and confidence notes') and covers inputs and execution behavior. It doesn't detail error handling or edge cases, but for a read-only classifier with high schema coverage, this is reasonably complete. A more explicit return format description would push it to 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters (currency, start_date, end_date) already described. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 given high coverage. It mentions the context elements (policy rate, inflation, GDP, unemployment), which relate to classification logic but not to parameter syntax.

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 'Classify a currency's macro regime using policy rate, inflation, GDP, and unemployment context' – a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the outputs (assumptions and confidence notes). While this differentiates the tool as a macro-regime classifier, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 usage when a currency's macro regime classification is needed and notes support for MCP Tasks for async execution. However, it provides no explicit comparison to sibling macro tools (e.g., macro_heatmap_task, macro_briefing_task) or 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the context implied rather than explicit.

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