get_exploratory_policy_rate_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context: the history is separately stored, officially revised, and the tool never asserts historical availability. This goes beyond a generic read description, though it does not discuss error cases or response behavior.

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?

Two sentences carry all the essential information with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat is placed immediately after, making the description easy to parse and act on.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it defines the data source, scope, and critical limitations. However, it does not describe what the returned history contains or any response format details, which would be useful given the absence of an output schema.

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 compensate by explaining parameter usage. It does not mention the 'currencies' parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone. The tool name hints at policy-rate history, but the description adds no meaning about how to supply currency selections.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('separately stored official revised policy-rate history'), and a clear scope ('for exploratory research only'). It also distinguishes the data from prospective or out-of-sample carry evidence, which helps differentiate it from related carry and policy-rate 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 explicitly limits usage to exploratory research and explicitly warns against using it as prospective or out-of-sample carry evidence. It provides clear context and exclusions, though it does not name a specific alternative tool to use instead.

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