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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses what the tool returns (signal_strength, risk_band, reason_codes, allowed/blocked categories) and explicitly states what it does NOT do (no personalized advice, sizing, or venue picks). The 'evidence only' positioning further signals a strict non-advisory role. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only behavior or data freshness, but its safe, evidence-only nature is well conveyed.

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 highly concise—three short sentences plus a product positioning tag. It front-loads the core role, lists output fields, and conveys exclusions in a scannable format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool is simple (no params, no output schema), and the description covers the essential points: what it returns, what it doesn't, and its positioning. However, it leaves some ambiguity about the underlying data source (given many sibling inflation tools like bls_inflation, ecb_inflation) and does not explain the semantics of signal_strength/risk_band, which could confuse an agent trying to differentiate it from alternatives.

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?

This tool takes no parameters (empty input schema, 0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no param-specific information because none is needed; it simply references 'CPI YoY' which is the tool's fixed data series. This is perfectly acceptable given the zero-parameter 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as providing CPI YoY evidence with specific output fields (signal_strength, risk_band, reason_codes, allowed/blocked action categories). The explicit exclusions ('NO personalised recommendations, NO sizing, NO venue picks') distinguish it from other inflation-related tools. Although no verb like 'returns' is used, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'as evidence only' indicates the appropriate use case, and the bolded exclusions explicitly tell the agent when NOT to use this tool (when recommendations, sizing, or venue picks are needed). However, it does not name alternative tools or provide a direct 'use this when' statement, making the guidance somewhat implicit.

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