Mortgage and loan rates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose data semantics: rates are advertised, expressed as % per year, and reported monthly. It says nothing about the return shape, ordering, default selection of rates, or freshness beyond what the schema implies, so gaps remain.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the data source and frequency, then the category breakdown. No filler and nothing redundant with structured fields.

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 3-parameter, zero-required retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what data comes back, but it omits the default `rates` selection (owner_occupier_variable_discounted), the meaning of omitting start/end, and any note about the latest-release boundary. No output schema means return expectations rest entirely on this text.

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 67% and the `start`/`end` parameters are already documented in-schema, so the schema does most of the work. The description's enumeration of loan categories maps conceptually onto the `rates` enum values, adding a little meaning, but it never mentions date-range semantics or the default rate.

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 exactly what is returned: RBA indicator lending rates, advertised, % per year, monthly, broken down by loan category. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_cash_rate or get_exchange_rates by the resource named. It stops short of an explicit verb or an explicit sibling contrast, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternative tools (e.g. get_cash_rate for the policy rate vs. this for advertised lending rates), and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the data being described.

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