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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing pagination behavior ('pass next_cursor to get the next page') and a licensing/attribution obligation (Source: Sveriges riksbank, CC BY 4.0), which is behaviorally significant for downstream display.

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 front-loaded with the resource and followed immediately by pagination and the field inventory. It is dense but nearly every element earns its place; the only slight redundancy is repeating the type annotations that mirror the return shape.

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 field enumeration (date, rate, percentiles, volume, transactions) is the only documentation of the return shape and it is provided with units and semantics. It omits domain context about what SWESTR measures, but structurally it is complete enough to call and parse the tool.

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 all five parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces the cursor parameter's role ('next_cursor from the previous page') without adding format or constraint detail beyond the 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 names the resource (Swestr per day) and enumerates the returned fields, which hints at a daily interest-rate series, but it never explains what SWESTR actually is (Sweden's overnight rate) and does not distinguish itself from the sibling riksbank_rates tool. An agent unfamiliar with the acronym must guess the domain from the field names alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as riksbank_rates, nor any guidance on filtering (date vs date_gte/date_lte). The only operational hint is the pagination instruction, which is a mechanic rather than usage guidance.

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