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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses key behaviors: the 60-minute delay for free users, the deliberate omission of market direction in minutes, and the verification of quotes against source. These add significant context that annotations do not convey.

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 detailed but not bloated. It front-loads the main purpose and then lists digest contents and caveats in a logical sequence. Each sentence serves a purpose, though a slightly shorter version could retain clarity. Strong structure overall.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what each digest contains (summary, novelty, market impact, lean, quotes). It also notes the delay and minute-specific caveat. This is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call the tool, though it does not detail pagination or exact format.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (kind, limit), with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, though it implicitly echoes the 'kind' values. Baseline 3 applies because schema covers it fully.

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 provides digests of FOMC minutes and Fed/ECB speeches, read end to end, with specific components (summary, new vs. known, market consequence, lean, verified quotes). It distinguishes itself from sibling market-data tools by focusing on document digests rather than numeric data.

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 implies use for those needing detailed central bank document analysis rather than headlines, and points out a limitation for minutes (no market direction). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not name any sibling tools as alternatives or complementarities.

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