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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: no payment is required and the output is deliberately truncated, with the item count exposed via comparison_basis. It does not discuss rate limits or auth specifics, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the identifying noun phrase and followed by the two facts an agent needs (trimmed sample, same schema as get_macro). No filler and nothing buried.

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?

The tool is simple: one enum parameter, annotations covering safety, and a full output schema. The description covers the only non-obvious aspects - free versus paid, truncated versus full, and where the truncation count appears - so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already enum-constrained to NFP, GDP, CPI. The description repeats those ids and adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, so it lands at the baseline for a fully documented parameter.

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 names the resource (US macro release card for CPI, payrolls, GDP) and states its scope precisely: a trimmed, free sample of the latest card. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_macro by saying it has the same schema but is a trimmed view with no payment; only the lack of an explicit action verb keeps it from a 5.

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?

It makes the primary choice clear - take this free trimmed sample, and get_macro is the full counterpart with identical schema - and it clarifies that the number of returned items is reported in comparison_basis. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when / not when' statement, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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