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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating the tool returns raw data 'without adding derived sentiment or indicator classifications' and that it provides 'original official release rows', offering a clear picture of the output nature beyond the annotations.

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: the first clearly states the core function, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; there is zero redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, full schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema), the description fully covers the necessary context. It explains what the tool does, how it differs from a sibling, and when to use it, without needing to explain return values since an output schema exists.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add new parameter details or examples, but it does clarify the overall purpose of the 'currency' parameter. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource: 'public central-bank press-release archive for a currency'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool macro_news by stating the difference between raw releases and headline summaries, and also clarifies it does not add sentiment or indicator classifications.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use macro_news when a headline summary is useful; use this tool when the original official release rows matter.' This directly tells the agent when to prefer this tool over an alternative, including a when-not-to-use condition.

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