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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably. It discloses the payment requirement ($0.05 via x402), the 'evidence only' nature, the output structure (reason_codes + signal_strength + risk_band), and the limitation of no regime labels. It also notes the legacy macroracle lineage and free trial units, providing a thorough behavioral profile for an agent.

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 somewhat dense with emojis, payment details, call URL, and free-unit note, but every sentence contributes essential information—payment requirement, purpose, output, limitations, and access method. It is front-loaded with the premium alert and remains readable. Slightly overlong for a no-param tool, but not wasteful.

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?

The description is fully self-contained: it explains what the tool returns (reason_codes, signal_strength, risk_band), what data it covers, how to access it (URL and header), and its limitations. With no output schema provided, this description sufficiently covers the return values and usage context, making it complete for an agent to decide on and invoke the 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 and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description implicitly confirms that no inputs are needed by outlining the tool's function. Baseline score for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or confusing information.

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 a 'US economic health composite (GDP, unemployment, inflation, consumer confidence)' and explicitly notes it returns reason_codes + signal_strength + risk_band. This specific blend of indicators distinguishes it from sibling tools like gdp_growth or inflation, and the mention of 'NO regime labels' further differentiates it from related tools.

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 provides clear context: it is a paid premium tool requiring x402 payment, and it explicitly states that it is a composite and does not provide regime labels. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when regime labels are needed, so it lacks a direct 'use instead' pointer. Still, the context is evident and clear.

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