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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds some useful context by specifying that the data is 'current' and limited to macro categories, but it does not explain behavior such as how optional forum sentiment rows are appended or how results are presented.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler; the core concept and category list are front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a simple read-only tool, though the fragment-like phrasing limits its richness.

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 read-only snapshot tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks alternatives, does not clarify the relationship between the optional symbols and the macro categories, and provides no output-shape expectations despite the absence of an output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about 'symbols' or 'includeForumSentiment', and the phrase 'nastroje na rynku amerykańskim' is not explicitly connected to the forumSentiment feature described in 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?

The description 'Bieżące czynniki makro: surowce, waluty, stopy, nastroje na rynku amerykańskim' clearly identifies the resource as current macro drivers and enumerates specific categories. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', and it does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as macro_attribution or get_factor_context.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description only states what the tool covers, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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