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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only and idempotent. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral detail: it compares only the immediately preceding comparable statement, returns source-grounded evidence, includes direction and materiality, and explicitly disclaims trading advice. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well organized and front-loaded with its primary purpose. It is concise overall, though the list of canonical central bank values is duplicated from the schema and could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and clear parameter descriptions, the core invocation context is complete. It covers required input, optional historical comparison, default behavior, and output characteristics. The main missing piece is explicit sibling routing guidance, but this is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents centralBank values, aliases, the date format, and the default behavior. The description mostly restates this information rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, placing it at the baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: comparing central bank monetary-policy statements and returning material changes. It names the exact comparison dimensions and output features, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_market_reaction or get_event_context.

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 gives clear context for using the optional currentStatementDate and the default behavior when omitted. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over its siblings, and the only exclusion is a brief note that it does not provide trading recommendations.

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