market_inflation_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the output (pressure level) but does not mention whether it's read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or if any data is modified. Given it's a report, likely safe, but not confirmed.

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 concise, front-loaded with a tag, and fits in two sentences. It conveys essential information without waste, though the rhetorical question is slightly redundant.

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?

With no output schema and optional parameters, the description explains return values but omits default behavior when no parameters are provided. It references two data sources without detailing their interaction, leaving some gaps for a report tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The tool description adds 'internal shelf inflation and macro CPI gap' as background context but does not elaborate on how parameters affect results beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a pressure level (stable/rising/rising_fast/falling/above_official) from internal shelf inflation and macro CPI gap, distinguishing it from sibling 'market_inflation' which likely provides raw data. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'pressure level' are specific.

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 begins with '[Intel]' hinting at business intelligence use, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like 'market_inflation' or 'market_intel_brief'. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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