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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds the behavioral context of using real-time ECB and FRED rates and producing forward contract suggestions, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose return format or potential delays, but output schema exists. This is consistent with a mid-range score.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then listing inputs and outputs. Every clause adds value: target audience, data sources, required inputs, and output types. No filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what it does, who it's for, inputs, and outputs. It does not explain optional parameters like riskAppetite or timeHorizonDays, but schema already documents them. The combination of description, annotations, and schema makes the tool contextually complete for an agent to invoke 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 six parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions the required inputs (base currency, target currencies, working capital amounts) but adds no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing real-time ECB and FRED foreign exchange rates to recommend optimal hedging strategies. It specifies the resource (working capital FX hedging) and the action (analyze, recommend), making it distinct from generic tools like fx_rate or treasury_optimizer.

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: 'For CFOs managing multinational working capital', indicating when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the target audience and use case are clearly implied. Sibling tools like treasury_optimizer or supply_chain_fx_exposure_dashboard could overlap, but the description's focus on hedging strategy suggests appropriate usage.

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