get_benchmark_rates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that values carry an as-of date and source, and that data is authoritative but dated due to RBI lacking a free live API, with an env override. This is transparent about the recency and customizability, going beyond a simple 'returns data' statement.

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, front-loaded with a clear title-like phrase and immediately states the return values. Every word earns its place, covering purpose, use case, data provenance, and configuration in a compact, scannable format.

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 tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what data is returned, the source limitations, the as-of date, the override mechanism, and the intended use case. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but none are needed. It does mention env override, which is related to configuration rather than parameters, so the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns the current RBI repo rate and representative bank fixed-deposit rates with a specific verb ('returns') and resource (rates). It differentiates from siblings by focusing on benchmark rates, which no other tool covers, and adds the purpose of comparing safe returns against mutual fund returns.

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 implies a clear use case: comparing safe returns (repo/FD) against mutual fund returns. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke it, especially given the unique purpose among sibling tools.

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