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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool can return either the full current table or a per-country history, and it gives useful examples. However, it does not mention data sources, update frequency, how invalid country codes are handled, or what fields the returned data contains.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core resource. The phrasing 'with a current series: the current table' is slightly awkward and could be structured more clearly, but there is no redundant filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main usage scenarios and parameter behavior. It could be more explicit about the response format or the contents of the current table, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to make an initial call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the optional country parameter selects a history and provides concrete examples (us, xm for euro area, jp, gb), while also implying omission returns the current table. This adds substantive meaning beyond the raw 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 identifies the resource as central bank policy rates for 38 economies, which distinguishes it from most siblings in the list. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the meaning is clear from 'Central bank policy rates' and the mention of current table vs history.

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 two modes of use (current table vs one country's history) but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as economic_calendar, macro_series, or funding_rates. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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