market_affordability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention data freshness, update frequency, side effects, or limitations. The term 'One-call' implies simplicity but lacks detail on underlying methodology or dependencies.

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 two sentences and relatively concise, though the first sentence uses bracketed '[Intel]' and jargon that may not be universally clear. It front-loads the key purpose but could be more structured or accessible.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a composite of multiple indicators) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the output contains (e.g., numeric index, categories, breakdowns) or how to interpret the results. Additional context is needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 67%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how country, line, or days affect the composite. The schema provides minimal descriptions (e.g., country lists values but no semantics, line has no description, days has only 'Analysis window'). The tool's purpose description does not compensate for missing parameter context.

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 clearly states the tool provides a cost-of-living composite for LATAM, mentioning specific components like canasta pressure, wage ratio, macro gap, and regulatory headlines. The name and description together convey the purpose of assessing market affordability, distinguishing it from sibling tools like market_inflation or market_scores.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusion criteria or comparative advantages over other market tools from the sibling list. The agent would need to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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