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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by calling the result 'estimated' and 'indicative', alerting the agent to potential inaccuracy. The 'Not financial advice' disclaimer also adds transparency. No contradiction with 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that covers the core function, data source, and an important caveat. Every clause earns its place, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the complete input schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It covers the purpose, the estimation nature, and the data source. A minor gap is that it doesn't hint at how the conversion handles unknown asset codes or rounding, but this is not critical for a conversion tool.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including examples for code and constraints for amount. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the asset types, so it stays at the baseline.

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 function: converting fiat, crypto, or gold amounts to Toman value using Arzbin data. The verb 'Converts' and the explicit target (Toman value) distinguish it from the sibling rate-retrieval 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 implies usage context (conversion rather than raw rate lookup) and is supported by the sibling tool names. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, leaving a slight gap in guidance.

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