get_interest_rates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains what data is returned (ECB policy rates) and mentions historical data capabilities, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error conditions. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 well-structured with purpose first, then details, then concrete examples. Each sentence adds value, though the examples section could be slightly more concise. The front-loading of the core purpose is effective.

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 data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what data is returned and sample use cases. However, it doesn't describe the return format, data structure, or potential limitations. Given the 4 parameters and lack of output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It implies date range and filtering capabilities through the examples, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get key ECB interest rates' with specific resources identified (MRO, Deposit Facility, Marginal Lending Facility). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on ECB policy rates rather than exchange rates, inflation, or other economic data tools.

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 about what questions this tool answers (ECB rate queries), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_yield_curve' or 'get_exchange_rates'. The examples help clarify the scope but don't provide explicit exclusion criteria.

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