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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds operational caveats like 'window limited to recent days' and a disclaimer, which enrich understanding without contradicting annotations. It does not reveal potential rate limits or data availability issues, but the added context is valuable.

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 organized into labeled sections (Purpose, Triggers, When to call, Next steps, Caveats, Args, Disclaimer), making it scannable. It is somewhat verbose due to multilingual trigger examples and overclaiming language, but every section earns its place and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are handled separately. The description provides prerequisites, sequencing relative to a sibling tool, next steps, and caveats, making it sufficiently complete for a read-only tool with open-world behavior. It lacks details on data freshness or edge cases, but overall coverage is strong.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only repeats the parameter names with minimal gloss (e.g., 'market_id: Market identifier', 'days: Lookback window in days'), adding no new meaning, examples, or constraints. The vague caveat about 'recent days' is the only extra hint, but it is insufficient.

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: classifying news into three buckets (anticipated, surprise with precursor, pure surprise). It uses specific terminology and defines each category, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other news-related analytics.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'When to call: after get_news_leading_indicator_performance' and lists trigger questions in multiple languages. It also includes prerequisites and next steps, giving clear guidance on when and how to use this tool relative to alternatives.

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