macro_bank_english_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 covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the data coverage window (1970-01-01 to present) and the return type (a pandas.Series of 今值 %). It says nothing about refresh cadence, auth, or rate limits, so it clears the lowered bar without being rich.

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 report name and coverage window are front-loaded, and the whole thing is short. The two raw source URLs and the ':return:'/':rtype:' docstring lines are mildly noisy but do convey origin, so they roughly earn their place.

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 time series with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what the series is, its date coverage, and that the value is a percent in a pandas.Series. Nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description does not need to compensate for any documentation gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it returns the Bank of England interest-rate decision report ('英国央行决议报告') and specifies the data range from 1970-01-01 to present. The name and country make it clearly separable from the macro_bank_*_interest_rate family, though the description itself never names an alternative like macro_uk_bank_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many near-siblings (macro_uk_bank_rate, macro_bank_usa_interest_rate, macro_bank_euro_interest_rate), the agent gets no explicit condition that selects this one; usage is only inferable from the name and country label.

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