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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that records are per business day, most recent first, and lists data fields. It provides behavioral context beyond annotations but does not detail pagination or rate limits.

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 long, front-loaded with the key metrics, and uses efficient language. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description lists all included data fields (HIBOR, aggregate balance, etc.), which is adequate. Combined with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description 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%, so baseline 3. The description reinforces using from/to but does not elaborate on other parameters (fields, offset, sortby, etc.) beyond what schema already provides. No additional semantic value for most parameters.

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 specifies a clear purpose: providing daily interbank liquidity figures with a detailed list of metrics (HIBOR, aggregate balance, discount window base rate, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hkma_interbank_interest_rates by focusing on liquidity aggregates, not just interest rates.

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 advises using 'from/to' for date windowing, which is direct usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives for different data needs (e.g., other HKMA tools).

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