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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the list of covered indicators, which is meaningful behavioral scope, but since an output schema exists it does not add return-format, freshness, or staleness detail that the structured fields lack.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. The field enumeration is somewhat long and overlaps with the output schema, but it is scannable and justifies itself as a scope statement rather than padding.

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, read-only, idempotent lookup with a full annotation set and an output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs to select it. Only the relationship to get_macro_history/get_macro_exposure is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; schema coverage is 100% and the object is empty. Baseline of 4 applies — no parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get the current NZ macroeconomic regime') followed by an explicit enumeration of what the regime covers (OCR and cycle direction, GDP, CPI, unemployment, NZD, Fed Funds, US 10Y). The word 'current' plus the fixed indicator set cleanly separates it from snapshot-style macro siblings such as get_macro_history and get_macro_exposure.

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 closing sentence ('Use this to provide macro context for investment analysis') gives an intended use, but there is no when-not guidance and no routing to the obvious alternatives (get_macro_history for time series, get_macro_exposure for company-level sensitivity). Usage is implied rather than specified.

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