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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context: what data variants are returned (seasonally adjusted quarterly chain volume in AUD millions, current price estimates, per-capita/per-hour aggregates) and the data provenance including CC BY 4.0 licensing. 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?

Four succinct sentences, front-loaded with verb+resource, then return contents, temporal range, and licensing. No filler or redundancy with the schema; every sentence adds a distinct fact.

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 read-only retrieval tool with zero required parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the key selection context: data source, available aggregates, time span, and licensing. Parameter interplay (e.g., omitting measure returns both chain_volume and current_prices) is already documented in the 100%-coverage schema, so nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'seasonally adjusted' and 'quarterly' echoes the schema's parameter docs rather than adding new meaning; it contributes no syntax or enum details beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description opens with the specific verb 'Retrieve' and pins the resource to 'Australian Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data from the ABS National Accounts Key Aggregates (ANA_AGG)'. The country/source qualifier separates it from OECD, US BEA, UK ONS, and sibling ABS tools like cpi/labour_force, so an agent can pick it for Australian GDP 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?

The description establishes clear context for when to call it: Australian GDP from ABS, listing the available measures (chain volume, current prices, per capita, per hour worked, hours worked) and the 1959+ time span. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of 5, but the country and source qualifiers are sufficient to route an agent to this tool over siblings.

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