Policy and interbank rates

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the weekly cadence and the exact semantics of each returned column (floor vs. corridor ceiling), which the annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing row counts, ordering beyond the schema's 'newest first', or gaps in coverage.

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-loads the core purpose in the first clause, then the column glossary, then the routing hint. The four-column definition list is dense but each entry earns its place by disambiguating similar-sounding rate series; the sentence is somewhat long but not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so via the column glossary, plus the weekly cadence and default-year behavior. An agent could call this correctly. Minor gap: no mention of how current-year data behaves mid-year or what an empty result means.

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% — both `year` (Jalali, 1399 to now, defaults to current) and `limit` (1-60, newest first) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as how `year` interacts with `limit` or whether partial years are truncated. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 — the Central Bank's weekly interest rates — and enumerates the four series returned (interbank, repo_min, standing_lending, standing_deposit), so the agent knows exactly what data this yields. It does not differentiate from the closest sibling, cb_rate_history, which an agent could plausibly confuse with a weekly-rates 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?

Gives an explicit usage context ('monetary policy and money market questions') and routes inflation questions to cb_inflation by name. Missing any guidance on when to prefer cb_rate_history or cb_statistics over this tool, which is the more likely ambiguity given the sibling list.

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