macro_taylor-rule

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool returns two outputs (implied rate and deviation), which is useful. No behavioral traits beyond annotations are disclosed, but the description aligns well.

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 extremely concise at three sentences, front-loading the purpose and usage, then stating return values. No superfluous text; every sentence earns its place.

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 is a simple calculation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, and return values adequately. It could mention the formula or assumptions, but the schema fills in parameter details, making it reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description reinforces that certain parameters (inflation, target inflation, output gap, neutral rate) are key, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 computes the Taylor Rule interest rate prescription, specifying the verb 'estimating' and the resource 'appropriate policy interest rate'. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique focus on a specific monetary policy rule.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use when estimating the appropriate policy interest rate via the Taylor Rule', providing clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. Though alternatives are not mentioned, the specificity makes misuse unlikely.

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