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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool bundles multiple indicators and includes a derived 'cycle phase signal,' which is useful behavioral insight beyond the annotations. It does not mention rate limits or data quirks, but those are less critical for a read-only snapshot.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey what the tool returns and when to use it. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids filler; every clause contributes meaningful information.

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?

With a full output schema available, the description doesn't need to detail return shapes. It provides the essential context: what indicators are included and why to use it (macro context/recession risk). This is complete for a simple, read-only, no-parameter 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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed; the schema already covers everything. The description's list of returned data adds context but not parameter semantics, so the baseline 4 for zero param 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('macro health snapshot') and enumerates the exact metrics included (GDP, unemployment, CPI, Fed funds rate, yield curve spread, Sahm Rule). This distinguishes it from sibling bundle tools by making its exact scope explicit.

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 states a clear intended use: 'Use this for macroeconomic context or recession risk assessment.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like get_bundle_rate_environment or get_recession_indicator, so it misses the full 'when/when-not/alternatives' bar, but the context is unambiguous.

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