macro_bank_russia_interest_rate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the data range (20030601-至今), source URLs, and the return type (pandas.Series) with unit (%), which helps an agent understand the nature and format of the data beyond basic safety flags.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the report name and data range, but it includes two source URLs that are not essential for tool invocation or usage. It also repeats the title from the annotations, adding slight redundancy. Overall, it is concise but has a bit of clutter.

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 simple zero-parameter, read-only data retrieval tool, the description provides sufficient context: data coverage, return type, and value meaning. It lacks explicit mention of the series index or historical date structure, but the :rtype indicates a pandas.Series, which is likely adequate for an agent to understand the output.

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, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 identifies the tool as providing Russia's interest rate decision report with a data range from 20030601 to the present, and states the return value as current value (%). It is distinguishable from sibling tools by the country-specific name and content. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'Get' or 'Retrieve'), so it reads more like a title than a directive.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives for other countries' interest rates. It implies usage through the name and data range, but provides no exclusions, comparisons, or guidance on selecting this over sibling tools like macro_bank_usa_interest_rate.

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