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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine operational context: 60 calls/minute per IP rate limit, no authentication, at-most-daily data refresh, and that projected months come with 80% and 95% ranges. These are useful but are secondary operational notes rather than deep behavioral disclosure of edge cases or failure modes.

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 purpose, then index semantics, then usage examples, then operational limits — a sensible ordering with dense, low-waste prose. It is a single long block that mildly duplicates schema facts (e.g. ipc being the default), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, yet the description still tells the agent that the response distinguishes published from projected months and carries confidence ranges. Combined with the index semantics and limits, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: it explains what each index value actually computes (ipc composes monthly INDEC inflation; cer/uva divide one BCRA month by another) and restates the inversion behavior of from/to. That materially helps an agent choose the right enum value.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: converting an amount in Argentine pesos between months via an official index. This is clearly a computation tool, distinguishing it from the retrieval-oriented siblings (get_series, search_series, get_snapshot).

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 concrete query archetypes ('how much is X pesos from <month> worth today', rent restatement, backward valuation with from later than to) and states which index to pick for which real-world scenario (contracts vs loans/deposits). It also states the key exclusion: only 'ipc' can project past the last published month.

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