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

With annotations already covering readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, the description adds real value beyond them: 'Self-caching (6 h)' tells the agent data may be up to six hours stale, and the source restriction (Fed, NY Fed, Treasury, BEA, CFTC, Chicago Fed only; no third-party credit-spread series) bounds what will never appear. It stops short of describing response shape or freshness guarantees beyond the cache window.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource name, then a dense enumeration where each clause carries a unit, frequency, or coverage constraint that earns its place. It is long and reads as one packed run-on, but little is genuinely wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does: series list, units, frequency, prior-value fields, and the 10Y-2Y spread sign convention. The remaining gap is the response envelope (whether all series return in one object or separately), which an agent would want before parsing.

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?

There are zero parameters and the description states 'No parameters', consistent with the empty schema. Baseline is 4 for a no-param tool; nothing further is needed or missing here.

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?

Names a specific resource and then enumerates exactly what it contains (Fed net liquidity, real yield, breakevens, yield curve, CAPEX, CFTC positioning) with units and frequencies. That content list makes it obvious this is a macro/liquidity feed rather than a breadth, valuation or gapper tool, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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 implies usage by declaring the data domain and 'No parameters', so an agent knows it can be called unconditionally. It gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or pointer to an alternative tool among the five siblings.

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