macro_bank_newzealand_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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful context beyond that: the data range and the returned field (今值 %, a pandas Series). It does not explain refresh cadence or whether the series includes historical decision points vs. only the latest value, but for a parameterless read this is adequate.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the body is cluttered with two raw CDN/source URLs and docstring artifacts (:return:, :rtype:) that are not needed at selection time. These consume space without helping an agent decide whether to call the tool.

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 data-fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: the specific report, the historical coverage, and the shape of the return value. It stops short of describing update frequency or exact return columns/timestamp semantics.

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 the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description's note on the return field partially compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 names a specific report (新西兰联储决议报告 = RBNZ interest-rate decision report) and its coverage window (1999-04-01 to present), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like macro_bank_usa_interest_rate or macro_bank_japan_interest_rate. It states what is fetched, though it reads as a restatement of the title rather than an independent description.

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 the many other central-bank interest-rate tools in the sibling list, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives named. Usage is only implied by the report name.

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