Liquidity and monetary news

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: units (trillion rials / هزار میلیارد ریال), the growth_pct comparison basis (same month a year earlier), and the important staleness caveat that `period` 'can lag by months'. It stops short of describing pagination or completeness of the statement list.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary output, then maps each returned key to its meaning, then closes with routing. Dense but every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess (fields, units, lag, alternatives); no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description documents the return shape thoroughly (monetary_aggregates with balance/growth_pct, period, statements, lead, monthly_report links). For a single-optional-param read tool with full annotation coverage, this is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns a bump by clarifying that `limit` governs only the `statements` array ('the latest statements on it', '`statements` are the newest news items'), which the schema's wording ('how many recent liquidity statements') does not make unambiguously scoped.

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 verb and resource ('Get Iran's liquidity (نقدینگی, M2) as numbers from the newest monthly report') plus the secondary payload ('latest statements'). It names the concrete fields (liquidity, M1, quasi-money, monetary base, money multiplier) so an agent can distinguish it from cb_inflation, cb_statistics and cb_news without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'For other sheets of that file call cb_statistics("monetary"); for other topics use cb_news.' That gives both the alternative tool and the condition selecting it, and even names the argument value. Nothing is left to inference about when this tool is the wrong choice.

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