get_economy_snapshot

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the two things that matter most: concurrent fan-out to all endpoints and partial-failure semantics (per-section failures surface as {"error": "..."} instead of aborting the whole call). It also warns that lang is a no-op today, which prevents a wrong assumption. It stops short of stating auth requirements, rate limits, or freshness/latency of the underlying sources.

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 verb and resource, then behavior, then routing guidance, with no filler sentences. The parenthetical enumeration of all five series is dense and slightly list-heavy, but each clause carries selection-relevant information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the composite nature and partial-failure behavior an agent must anticipate. It omits operational details such as authentication and rate limits, which is a minor gap for a read-only aggregator.

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 description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter's description already explains that lang is reserved for future use and filters nothing. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Get a one-shot snapshot of Hong Kong's macro-finance state') and then enumerates exactly what is included: the latest observation from each of five named HKMA/IRD series plus the fraudulent-bank-website count. An agent can distinguish this aggregator from the per-series siblings (get_hibor_daily_stats, get_neg_equity_stats, get_credit_card_stats, get_stamp_duty_statistics, get_business_stats) without opening any 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?

Explicitly gives the selecting condition ('Use this for an at-a-glance current-state view') and the exclusion with the alternative ('For historical ranges or time-series analysis, call the underlying per-series tools'). Because the five underlying series are named earlier, the agent can map 'per-series tools' to concrete siblings with no inference.

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