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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations (which are absent): the data is live, comes directly from GSC Radar, and is macro-level. It does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects, but for a read-only getter, this is acceptable. The phrase 'as GSC Radar publishes them' hints at a passthrough behavior. 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 a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core subject ('public network figures') and qualifies with format and scope. The only minor issue is that 'macro numbers only' is a bit cryptic—could be clearer, but it stays concise.

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 parameterless, read-only tool, the description covers the key aspects: what data (network figures), source (GSC Radar), format (live JSON), and granularity (macro). It doesn't describe the JSON structure or sample response, but given the simplicity and no output schema, this is sufficient. An agent could correctly use this tool with the given information.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the data represents, effectively explaining why no parameters are needed—it's a fixed public feed. No additional parameter documentation is required.

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 retrieves 'public network figures as GSC Radar publishes them,' adding the format ('live JSON') and scope ('macro numbers only'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the resource and action are clear. The title also reinforces the purpose.

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?

Usage context is implied through 'public network figures' and 'macro numbers only,' suggesting it's for high-level data, not detailed breakdowns. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools or any exclusions. The description implies a general use case but leaves selection logic to the agent.

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