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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description rightly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses that the payload includes scored economic releases plus a desk-authored causal read (event/flow/quiet) and the trading regime, which is material context an agent could not infer. It stops short of noting latency, pagination or failure behavior for the composite call, but the per-account lag is covered by the fresh parameter schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the routing instruction, then the payload inventory, then the sequencing advice — a sensible order with little filler. It runs slightly long in enumerating every asset class, but each clause maps to a real capability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the cross-asset board, the scored releases, the desk's causal read and the regime. An agent knows what comes back and roughly how to interpret it; only output shape/formatting details are left implicit.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already fully documents 'fresh' including the 5-credit live view and free-where-already-live case. The description only adds 'Market data: numbers follow the connected account', which is light supplementary context rather than genuine meaning beyond the schema.

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 and scope ('one call gives the whole cross-asset board... equities, the Treasury curve, FX, volatility, commodities') and names the exact question it answers ('why is the market doing this'). It is unmistakably distinct from the granular siblings like get_fx_board, get_vol_board and get_treasury_curve.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use this before the individual board tools: it saves five calls', giving both ordering and rationale against named alternatives. The 'START HERE' framing tells the agent exactly when this tool is the entry point versus a follow-up.

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