Get country macro profile

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, yet the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: what the score means and its direction (higher = more stress), which upstream sources feed it (OECD, IMF, BIS, World Bank, Eurostat), and a failure-mode guarantee that thinly covered countries return state "insufficient" rather than a misleadingly calm score. That last point is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait an agent needs before interpreting a result.

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 lead clause is front-loaded on the resource and the stress score, and the closing sentence about the insufficient state is well placed. The long mid-sentence enumeration of all eighteen constituent indicators is dense and could be compressed to pillar names alone without losing routing value, which keeps it from a 5.

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, the description carries the full burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly: latest value, period, source, per-input stress contribution, and a historyCode for follow-up calls, all scoped to the six pillars. An agent knows both what it gets back and how to continue into get_macro_history.

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 is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents alias handling (US, UK, Korea, Eurozone, Euro Area). The description adds nothing about the country argument itself, so this sits at the baseline where the schema does all the work.

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 resource (a single country's macro dashboard from the Global Markets warehouse) and defines the core artifact precisely: a 0-100 stress score with explicit directionality and six named pillars. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_macro_history by naming the historyCode field that feeds it, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete triggering questions ("how is the German economy doing", "is there a housing bubble in Canada", "macro risks in Italy") plus a use case (judging a country backdrop for stocks), which is unusually actionable. It hints at the get_macro_history relationship but never states the inverse exclusion or how it differs from get_macro_indicators, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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