manufacturing-brief

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

No annotations provided, so description fully discloses behavior: data sources (7 FRED signals), synthesis model (GPT-4o-mini), and output components (regime, risk, implication, narrative). Also mentions 'free, no auth' for the signals.

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, providing key information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the purpose but could be slightly more streamlined.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: input, process, data sources, and output. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with one parameter (style) already well-described. The description mentions the 200-word narrative, which is part of the parameter's description, but adds no new semantic beyond the schema.

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 it synthesizes a US manufacturing briefing from 7 FRED signals, producing regime, risk, implication, and narrative. It distinguishes from siblings like energy-brief, labor-brief, and consumer-brief as part of a macro suite.

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 explains the tool's purpose and mentions it completes the macro intelligence suite alongside other briefs, implying usage context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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