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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are ordered soonest-first, decision day is local to the bank while announcement time is UTC where published, and 'the decision once observed' signals that future rows may lack an outcome — a meaningful data-completeness cue.

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?

Purpose and ordering are front-loaded in the first clause, and every field is listed compactly. The 21-bank enumeration is long but serves as an at-a-glance coverage signal for the unconstrained banks parameter; it is verbose but not 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, coverage, ordering, and time-zone semantics. It stops short of stating pagination or result-size limits, which a window-based listing tool would benefit from.

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%, with from/to defaults and the flexible bank matching (id, name, abbreviation, country) already documented in the schema. The description adds time-zone framing ('local to the bank') but no extra parameter syntax or edge-case meaning, so 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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Policy-rate decisions in a date window, soonest first.' It then enumerates exactly what each row carries (decision day, announcement time, calendar/moved/unscheduled flag, rate in, observed decision), which separates it cleanly from siblings like upcoming_auctions and bank_status.

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?

Usage is only implied by the date-window framing and the listed coverage (21 banks, 2 inflation series). It never says when to prefer this over upcoming_auctions, nor when a decision row is absent or not yet observable. An agent can infer the context but gets no explicit routing or exclusion guidance.

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