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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful context beyond these: 'Read-only public research data. No account access, no order placement or fund transfers. Not investment advice.' This clarifies the scope of operations and the absence of trading actions, which is not fully captured by generic annotations. No contradiction with 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 compact and information-dense, leading with the core purpose, then exclusions, alternatives, and safety disclaimers. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids fluff. The structure front-loads the purpose and quickly guides the agent to decide whether the tool is appropriate.

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 has 9 parameters but only one required, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it returns (macro stats), the mode options, the no-event-feed caveat, and the non-investment-advice disclaimer. It lacks explicit mention of parameter aliases, but the schema covers those. Overall, it is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 all 9 parameters are documented in the schema. The description itself does not add new parameter details; it mentions indicator examples (CPI, rates, jobs) and mode ('latest or series'), which slightly reinforces the existing mode and indicator descriptions, but does not go beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Official macro stats: latest or series by country/indicator (CPI, rates, jobs).' It enumerates the kinds of indicators (CPI, rates, jobs) and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting 'No event feed' and naming the alternatives (Calendar→get_economic_calendar, Dashboard→get_macro_summary). This clearly differentiates the tool from its siblings.

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 provides clear context: it is for macro stats, read-only research data, and not the event feed. It explicitly points to get_economic_calendar for events and get_macro_summary for dashboards, giving alternative tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_macro_summary beyond the dashboard reference, so it lacks a full when/when-not directive but is close.

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