real_cash_rate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses data sources (RBA + ABS), the calculation logic, and the output fields (nominal rate, CPI change, real rate, stance flag). It does not mention limitations like data update frequency or error handling, but for a simple retrieval tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what it returns, the use case, and the return fields. Front-loaded with the main function, no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains what it computes, the data sources, the return values, and when to use it. No critical information is missing.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so a baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and there is no parameter information required 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('real (inflation-adjusted) cash rate'), and distinguishes from siblings by stating the formula (RBA cash rate minus ABS CPI annual change) and the policy question it answers. This is clear and unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context with 'Single call answers 'is monetary policy restrictive?'', which tells an agent when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as suggesting real_mortgage_rate for mortgage-specific rates. This is a clear context but with no exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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