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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important runtime behavior: it requires an FXMacroData API key and that anonymous calls return subscription_required with a subscribe link. It also reveals output components such as composite score, regime label, component contributions, pagination, and data_quality metadata.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the primary action and resource, then adds result composition, use case, and access requirements. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a read-only tool with two optional date parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what the result contains, when to use it, and authentication behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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%, and both parameters are already documented as optional date filters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 clearly states a specific resource — the global risk-on/risk-off sentiment series — and its purpose for FX regime analysis. It is distinct enough from generic macro tools, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling tools like macro_regime_classifier_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 gives explicit guidance on when to use it: 'before classifying high-beta, safe-haven, commodity, or USD-defensive FX conditions.' It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the intended usage context is clear.

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