BoE base rate statistics over a range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it well. It discloses optional date behavior, inclusive end, the nuance that the start-date rate counts even if applied earlier, and what the net move represents. This goes beyond merely restating the tool's function.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses no filler. Every sentence adds distinct information: the computed stats, the default behavior, and a subtle inclusion rule. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances, return contents, and parameter defaults. The output schema exists, so not detailing every field is acceptable. It also handles edge cases (start date rate applied earlier) and full history defaults, making it complete for agent use.

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 schema already documents both parameters (100% coverage), providing baseline 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining defaults ('Defaults to today' for to, 'Defaults to the start of the available series' for from) and how the inclusive range works with the start-date nuance. This enhances understanding beyond the 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get summary statistics of the Bank of England base rate over a date range.' It enumerates the exact outputs (min/max with dates, time-weighted average, start/end rates, net move), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_rate_history (raw rates) or get_rate_at (single point).

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 clear context for when to use it: when summary statistics are needed over a range. It clarifies optional dates and defaults ('omit them for the full available history through today'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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