get_shibor_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool fetches data (implying read-only) and returns either a markdown table or error message, which covers basic behavior. However, it lacks details about rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what specific error conditions might occur.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses exactly three sentences with zero wasted words. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (2 optional date parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what data is fetched, parameter details, and return format. The main gap is lack of behavioral context like rate limits or error specifics, but the output schema reduces the need to fully describe return values.

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 description explicitly documents both parameters (start_date and end_date) with format details ('YYYY-MM-DD') and clarifies they're optional. Since schema description coverage is 0% (titles only provide 'Start Date'/'End Date'), the description adds significant value by specifying the exact date format and optional nature, though it doesn't explain default behavior when dates are omitted.

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 with a specific verb ('fetches') and resource ('SHIBOR data'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the exact financial data type (SHIBOR rates). It's not a tautology and provides meaningful differentiation from tools like get_loan_rate_data or get_deposit_rate_data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions fetching SHIBOR data, it doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or contrast with similar tools like get_loan_rate_data that might provide different interest rate data. The agent receives no contextual usage instructions.

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