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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context by framing the tool as an informational reference covering exclusions and policy, reinforcing that it is non-mutating and safe to call.

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 with no filler. The core scope is front-loaded, and the usage directive is concise and actionable.

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 parameterless, read-only methodology resource, the description fully covers what the agent will learn and when to consult it. No output schema is necessary for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document at the parameter level. The description compensates by explaining what content the tool provides, meeting the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 states a clear subject and scope: the full SBOR methodology and integration policy, including how the fixing is built, what is excluded, and what SBOR will/will not do. This differentiates it from siblings like get_rate (actual rate values) and compare_rate (comparisons).

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 final sentence gives explicit guidance: read this before quoting a rate in anything that matters. It does not name alternative tools, but the directive clearly signals the appropriate context for use.

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