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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by listing what the result includes: composite score, regime label, component contributions, pagination, and data_quality metadata, which is 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 three concise sentences: first states the action and resource, second lists output components, third gives usage guidance. Every sentence contributes without redundancy or fluff.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be detailed. The description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and output components. Minor omission is series granularity/frequency, but this is likely handled by the output schema.

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 covers both parameters (start_date, end_date) with descriptions and examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific details, so the baseline score 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 the tool returns a 'global risk-on/risk-off sentiment series' used for FX regime analysis, differentiating it from sibling tools that focus on specific asset classes or tasks. The verb 'Return' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this for cross-asset regime context before classifying high-beta, safe-haven, commodity, or USD-defensive FX conditions.' However, it does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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