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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds valuable context: live FRED feedback, data sources (WHO GHO, World Bank WDI, FRED), a 12h cache, and the transmission mechanism linking GBV to GDP drag and sovereign risk. These details go beyond the annotations and set clear expectations for data freshness and source reliability.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: it explains the core mapping, the two scores, their implications, additional features (live FRED, AI synthesis), data sources, cache, and input requirements. It is structured as a single informative block, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and avoids filler. The length is justified by the conceptual complexity.

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 that the tool takes no inputs, has a clear output schema (implied), and benefits from a rich annotation profile, the description fully covers the context needed for selection and invocation. It explains what the scores mean, how they relate to economic outcomes, what data is used, and the cache behavior. There is no ambiguity about the tool's scope or output semantics.

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, the rubric baseline is 4. The description explicitly states 'No input required', confirming the tool takes no arguments. That adds no further semantic meaning since the schema already shows an empty properties object, but it reinforces the fact. No parameter list exists to elaborate, so a 4 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs ('maps', 'returns') and distinct output (two scores: gbvRiskScore and opportunityScore). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on gender-specific risk and opportunity across 18 countries, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 strong context for when to use this tool—when assessing sovereign risk related to GBV prevalence, legal discrimination, and female labour force participation. It implies usage via the detailed data scope, but lacks explicit exclusion criteria or mention of alternatives. The 'No input required' clarifies invocation, but no direct comparison with sibling intelligence tools is given.

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