USD/HKD peg status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating the tool is read-only and may return unexpected data. The description adds behavioral context by stating that the tool reports the band and balance rather than guessing spot, and clarifies the dataset's scope. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 concise, information-dense, and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: it defines the tool's scope, explains what it reports, and clearly states its limitations. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present and a single optional parameter, the description covers the key functional aspects: what the tool reports, its limitation regarding spot rates, and the optional date. It could be more complete by mentioning what output fields to expect, but the output schema likely covers that, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 date parameter is fully documented with its pattern and meaning. The description reinforces the optional nature of the date but does not add additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: to report on the Linked Exchange Rate System's Convertibility Undertaking levels and Aggregate Balance, specifically for the USD/HKD peg. It distinguishes itself from potential sibling tools that might report spot rates by explicitly noting that this dataset does not publish the spot rate.

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 explains what the tool does not do (report spot USD/HKD rate) but does not explicitly name alternative tools for getting the spot rate or when to use them. Sibling tools like get_base_rate and get_hibor are different, but the description doesn't guide the agent to use them for spot rates. It does imply usage by stating the dataset's limitation.

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