macro_bank_switzerland_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 externally. The description adds the useful facts of the historical coverage start date (2008-03-13) and that the return is the report's current value in percent, but says nothing about update frequency or auth. A 3 is appropriate given annotations carry the behavioral burden.

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 core statement is front-loaded and brief, but the body is padded with two raw data-source URLs and Sphinx-style :return:/:rtype: docstring artifacts that add noise rather than agent-facing clarity. The useful content could be conveyed in one clean sentence.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema fetcher, the description supplies the resource, the historical window, and the return payload (a pandas.Series of the current value in percent), which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It stops short of stating refresh cadence or how far back series data actually extends in practice.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing parameter-level that the description needs to compensate for.

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 resource (Swiss National Bank interest rate decision report) with a defined data range (2008-03-13 to present), which clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling macro_bank_* and macro_swiss_* tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself against those siblings (e.g. macro_bank_usa_interest_rate, macro_swiss_cpi_yearly), so the differentiation is only implied by the country and metric.

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 dozens of near-identical macro_* rate/report tools in the sibling list, an agent gets no help deciding whether this Swiss rate report is the right choice over, say, macro_bank_usa_interest_rate or macro_swiss_gbd_bank_rate. No prerequisites or context are given.

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