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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description is not obligated to restate them. It instead adds real behavioral context: the archive is returned as original official rows with no derived sentiment or indicator classification, and non-USD currencies return subscription_required rather than data. That auth-gating behavior is valuable and not captured by any structured field.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (resource plus exclusion of derived data, then access gating) are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the key operational facts an agent needs: what is returned, what is excluded, and which currencies require a subscription. The only minor gap is absence of explicit sibling routing guidance.

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% with three documented parameters (currency, limit, offset), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond confirming the per-currency scoping, which is the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('public central-bank press-release archive for a currency'), and explicitly distinguishes its output from derived artifacts ('without derived sentiment or indicator classifications'), which separates it from siblings like indicator_query or macro_news. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

It discloses the access condition (USD free vs. subscription_required with a subscribe link) which is genuinely useful for deciding whether to call it, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as macro_news or latest_announcements. Usage is implied by the resource description rather than explicitly scoped.

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