macro_china_swap_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 real value beyond them by disclosing the one-year data availability window and the one-month maximum query range, which are behavioral limits an agent would otherwise only discover by failing.

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?

Purpose and the data-window limit are front-loaded, which is good. However, the raw source URL and the residual Sphinx :type:/:rtype: scaffolding add noise without helping an agent decide or invoke 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 2-parameter read-only macro tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, data window, range constraint and both parameter meanings, which is close to sufficient. The only meaningful omission is the date string format.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It names both start_date and end_date and their mutual constraint (span <= one month), which is genuinely useful, but it never states the expected date format even though the defaults (20231101, 20231204) imply YYYYMMDD.

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 resource unambiguously: FR007 interest-rate-swap curve historical data, which distinguishes it from sibling rate tools like macro_china_shibor_all or rate_interbank. It does not explicitly contrast itself against those siblings, but the named instrument is specific enough for an agent to identify the tool.

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?

Implies usage through the constraints 'only the last year of data is available' and 'start and end must not span more than one month', which tell the agent when the tool can be called. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance against the many sibling macro rate tools.

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