Any RBA statistical table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious mode: a `table`-only call returns a series listing rather than data, and subsequent calls retrieve values. It does not state that the operation is read-only, mention pagination, auth, or rate limits, which is a modest gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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 tightly written sentences with the fallback role front-loaded followed by the calling protocol. Every clause earns its place; no redundancy with the title or restated parameters.

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?

Six parameters, all documented in-schema, one required, no output schema. The description covers the workflow completely enough to invoke correctly, but with no output schema it stops short of hinting at the returned data shape (e.g. time-series values), leaving that to inference.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the relationship between `table`, `series`, and `search` - that table alone lists series and series/search are the two alternative narrowing paths - which the schema documents only as isolated fields.

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?

States a specific purpose - a fallback RBA series retriever - and names concrete tables it covers (f6, f2, g1, d1). It explicitly positions itself against the focused sibling tools (get_lending_rates, get_cash_rate, etc.) by framing itself as the catch-all for what they miss, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('data the focused tools don't cover') plus a concrete two-step invocation protocol: call with just `table` to list series, then call again with `series` ids or a `search` phrase. The alternative inputs are named with their selecting condition.

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