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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only public research data' aligns with those. It adds valuable extras: 'No account access, no order placement or fund transfers, not investment advice'—context beyond the annotations that clarifies limitations. These are non-repetitive and useful for an agent.

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 yet information-dense: it opens with the singular purpose, then provides routing alternatives, then safety/usage constraints. Each sentence adds distinct value with no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-argument tool with an output schema defined, the description covers all the essentials: purpose, use-case segmentation, security and compliance caveats. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it (or not) is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces 'Zero-arg' at the start, but since there are no parameters, there is nothing to clarify beyond confirming the tool takes no input.

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 starts with 'Zero-arg macro dashboard: key snapshots plus upcoming releases,' stating a specific verb-resource with clear scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming get_economic_calendar and get_macro_indicator as alternatives for specific use cases.

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 gives explicit when-to-use directions: 'Filtered calendar list→get_economic_calendar. Indicator snapshot or series→get_macro_indicator.' It also clarifies that this tool is for the general dashboard, not those detailed queries. This is direct, actionable routing advice.

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