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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently covers the premium payment requirement, the evidence-only nature, the returned fields, and the fact that it was rebuilt from a retired tool. It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but for a read-only, zero-parameter tool, this is adequate.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but includes extraneous elements like emojis, marketing language, and explicit call instructions that could be streamlined. It contains several clauses and asides (e.g., 'Rebuilt from retired macroracle') that add context but reduce conciseness.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key invocation details: what it returns, the payment requirement, and the evidence-only constraint. It does not explain the meaning of returned reason_codes, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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, so the schema already covers all inputs vacuously. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. The payment and header details are invocation context, not parameter semantics.

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 US recession indicators as evidence only, with a specific resource type and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it returns reason_codes, signal_strength, and risk_band, and by noting the absence of recession probability labels or risk classification.

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 usage context by stating the tool is evidence-only and explicitly excludes probability labels and LOW_RISK/HIGH_RISK classification, signaling when not to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools for those cases, so it lacks explicit 'use instead' guidance.

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