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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld=false, and the description adds genuinely new context: data provenance ('Official data (BIS, ECB, Federal Reserve)') and the default behavior of the dot-plot field. It omits pagination/response-shape details, but those matter less for a small fixed-output read.

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 sentences that put the resource and returned fields first and the exclusion last. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler or repetition.

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?

With three optional parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, and safety annotations in place, the description covers what to expect, where the data comes from, and what is excluded. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., ordering or update frequency of the rate series).

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%, so the properties (banks, since, dot_plot) are already documented, including defaults and the extended meeting coverage. The description reinforces the dot-plot conditional but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so the 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?

Names the exact resource (policy rates for eight named central banks) and enumerates the returned fields: current rate, last change, 12-month moves, rate path, and FOMC dot-plot medians. The scope is specific enough to separate it from get_central_bank_meetings or get_policy_signals 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 states what is included and excludes market-implied rate odds, which steers the agent away toward get_policy_signals. It also clarifies the dot-plot conditional ('when the Fed is included'). It stops short of naming the alternative tools directly, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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