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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them — the interpretation threshold, the underlying definition, the data source, and notably a per-call cost of $0.02 USDC via x402 on Base or Solana, which is a real behavioral constraint an agent must know before calling.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return value and threshold before the source and price. Dense and largely waste-free, though the pricing line is compressed into a sentence that could be more cleanly separated.

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 no output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining what the returned value means and how to read it. It stops short of saying whether the response includes a date/series metadata or just a scalar, a minor gap for a 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. No parameter guidance is needed or expected.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (returns the real-time Sahm Rule recession indicator) and immediately defines what the indicator measures and its FRED source, so it is clearly distinguishable from the surrounding macro/pricing siblings such as get_bundle_macro or get_series.

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 threshold rule ('a value >= 0.50 signals a recession is likely underway') implies the use case, but the description never says when to pick this over siblings like get_bundle_macro or get_series, nor does it state any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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