Weekly reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the schema cannot: reports are PDFs in Persian, only links are returned, and the newest-first ordering. It stops short of describing pagination depth or what metadata accompanies each link, which keeps it at a 4.

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?

Two tight paragraphs, front-loaded with what is returned, then routing guidance. The parenthetical Persian gloss and the repeated 'newest first' are mild redundancy but each sentence still carries routing or behavioral value.

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?

For a 2-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description supplies what an agent needs: return shape (PDF links), language, ordering, and where to go for actual figures. Only the presence of non-link metadata per report is left unspecified, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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%, so both parameters (year range 1380-1500, limit 1-60 newest first) are already fully documented. The description's 'newest first' merely echoes the limit description and adds no new format or semantics, so baseline 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+resource (list weekly market reports), the ordering (newest first), and the payload (PDF link per report). The Persian term and the explicit 'this tool only lists links, it does not read them' make the unit of return unambiguous versus every sibling.

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 an explicit use case ('find the official weekly summary of a week') and names the alternatives with the condition selecting them: ime_market_summary or ime_trades for numbers, ime_news for announcements. It also states the negative case (does not read the PDF), so the agent knows when this tool alone is insufficient.

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