macro_bank_euro_interest_rate

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the data range (19990101 to present), the return type (pandas.Series), and providing source URLs, which helps the agent understand what data it will receive.

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 and includes essential information: title, data range, source URLs, return type, and unit. It is slightly unstructured with long URLs, but every element serves a purpose.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by specifying the data range, return type, and percentage unit. It does not mention update frequency, but this is a minor gap for a simple data retrieval tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The baseline score of 4 applies, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as the 'European Central Bank decision report' and specifies the return value as the current value in percent, making the purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling macro_bank_* interest rate tools by explicitly mentioning the Euro/ECB, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 implies usage for European Central Bank interest rate decision data through the name and content, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the many other macro_bank_* interest rate tools. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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