macro_bank_brazil_interest_rate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the data start date and return format but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as update frequency, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 first line front-loads the purpose and data range effectively, but the inclusion of two raw URLs and non-standard format tags (:return:, :rtype:) adds clutter. Every sentence could be structured more cleanly for an agent.

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 parameterless, read-only data retrieval tool, the description supplies the essential context: data range, return value, and type. Annotations cover safety, and no output schema exists, so the description is largely complete, though it could mention the data source's nature more explicitly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. No parameter-related guidance is needed or expected.

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 states a specific data resource (Brazil interest rate decision report) and its temporal scope (20080201-present), distinguishing it from sibling country-specific interest rate tools like macro_bank_usa_interest_rate. It also specifies the return value and type. However, it lacks an explicit action verb, though the resource is clear.

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, nor any exclusions. It only describes the data content; an agent must infer that this is the correct tool for Brazilian interest rate decisions from the name and description alone.

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