get_macro_alert

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: concurrent queries, partial failure tolerance, error recording, scoring formula, and interpretation of zero. This exceeds the burden of transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded, covering all essential aspects in a single paragraph. Minor improvement could be achieved with bullet points, but it is already concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description provides thorough context: how the tool works, what it returns, failure handling, scoring logic, and the meaning of zero. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the 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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the single 'region' parameter, but the description mentions 'for a region' without specifying format or examples. Given the simplicity of the parameter, the baseline is 3, but more explicit guidance would improve it.

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's verb ('composite macro-inflection signal') and resource ('region'), and distinguishes it from siblings by detailing the three concurrent queries. No other sibling tool offers this composite functionality.

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 implies usage when a concise macro signal is needed, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like get_global_events. No when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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