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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds substance by enumerating the payload: latest reading, change, freshness per indicator, recent movers, and forward-looking releases/RPP meetings. It stops short of describing size, formatting or pagination behavior.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the routing cue ('Start here') is front-loaded before the payload breakdown. Every clause names something concrete the agent gets back.

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 tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: when to reach for it, what it aggregates, and what forward-looking context accompanies it.

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 and the schema is fully specified, so there is no parameter semantics burden to carry. The description correctly spends no words on inputs and focuses entirely on output scope.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the six headline indicators') and pins the scope to GDP, inflation, unemployment, wages and rates. The phrase 'Start here' positions it as the entry-point dashboard, implicitly distinguishing it from sibling detail tools like get_macro_indicator or list_macro_indicators.

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?

'Start here for "how is the Polish economy doing" or a briefing' gives an explicit trigger condition tied to a real user intent. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name the sibling to use for deep dives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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