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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It is transparent that the tool aggregates multiple data categories into one snapshot, and it details the content per scope. It also makes the tool's substitute-for-many-calls nature explicit, though it does not describe output shape or potential response-size tradeoffs.

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 sentences with no filler. It lead: an opening value proposition, a necessary content breakdown per scope, and a closing usage rule. Every line earns its place and the structure makes the key guidance easy to scan.

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 tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it names all three scope options, describes their returned categories, and clarifies the intended use case. A minor gap is that the response format, field structure, or "definitives" size are not described, but that is not essential for deciding when to call this simple tool.

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 schema already covers 'scope' at 100%, but the description adds real semantic value by mapping each enum value to concrete response contents (e.g., 'brazil' returns central-bank macro, the real interest rate, Ibovespa, and B3 blue chips). This goes beyond the schema's simple 'Which area to snapshot' and helps an agent decide which scope to pass.

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 uses a specific, meaningful claim: this tool returns a whole-area snapshot in one call. It backs that up by enumerating exactly what each scope ('brazil', 'global', 'crypto') returns, so an agent can distinguish this tool from get_market_data or search_market_data without opening the schema.

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 explicitly says to use this when the question is broad rather than about one number, which establishes both a when and a when-not. It does not name the specific sibling alternative for single-number queries, so it falls just short of fully explicit guidance.

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