Agregator.ro

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. Beyond that the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: data is updated daily, sourced from Agregator.ro, results are ranked by estimated total cost for the given amount and term, and the response is in Romanian.

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, resource and scope front-loaded, no filler. The long enumeration of returned fields is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what comes back.

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 compensates well by naming the returned values (rate, rate type, DAE, monthly payment, IRCC/ROBOR/EURIBOR), the ranking criterion, the data source and freshness, and the language. Only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including defaults and enums. The description reinforces the loan-type vocabulary and the amount/term ranking, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (Romanian bank loan offers from Agregator.ro) and enumerates the covered loan types (personal, mortgage, refinancing, Noua Casă, car), which clearly distinguishes it from the deposit-rate sibling. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools, but the domain is unmistakable.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no routing to alternatives. The reader must infer from the resource name that this is for loan offers rather than curs_bnr or dobanzi_depozite; the description never addresses the choice.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds real context that annotations cannot: freshness (published each working day after 13:00), unit basis (lei per unit), and output locale (Romanian) — all relevant to interpreting results.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The most decision-relevant facts (what the rates are, their unit, and the default currency set) are front-loaded.

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 and one optional parameter, the description covers what is returned (reference rates in lei per unit), in what language, and how fresh the data is. It stops short of describing the response shape or whether a publication date is included, which would fully close the loop.

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, but the description adds a default currency list (EUR, USD, GBP, CHF, HUF, MDL) that the schema does not document — the schema only describes ISO code format and max 40 items. This is genuine added meaning about default behavior.

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 resource (National Bank of Romania reference exchange rates) with unit semantics ('lei per unit') and publication timing. Siblings (credite, dobanzi_depozite, subiectele_zilei) are unrelated topics, so no sibling differentiation is needed.

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 clear context for use: daily reference rates published after 13:00, with an explicit default currency set so the agent knows it can call with no arguments. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives, but none are meaningfully available for this data-retrieval tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description needn't restate safety. It adds real behavioral context instead: the Agregator.ro source, daily refresh, net interest after the 10% tax, included conditions, and output language. Pagination/row-cap behavior for ranking is left to the schema.

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 resource and source, then the three usage modes, then output content and language. Dense but each sentence carries information; only the final 'In Romanian' clause feels like a tacked-on footnote.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the return shape across all three modes plus net-of-tax and conditions detail. It doesn't explain the amount/limit interplay for ranking, but that is already handled in the 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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented with examples, enums and defaults (including the term proximity note and audience filtering). The description's mode sentences reinforce intent but add little semantic detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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+resource ('Term deposit interest rates of Romanian banks') with named source and update cadence, and its domain is clearly distinct from the siblings credite (credits), curs_bnr (exchange rate) and subiectele_zilei (news). An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the 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 enumerates the three call modes: no term = highest rate per term, with term = every bank ranked by rate, with bank = all of that bank's current deposits. This is genuine when-to-use guidance that maps directly onto parameter combinations.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds substantial operational context beyond that: hourly updates from 08:00 to midnight Bucharest time, a fallback before 08:00 returning last night's stories, Romanian-language output, and that each story includes every outlet's headline and link.

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 dense sentence but is front-loaded with the core purpose and every clause carries useful information. It could be slightly easier to scan with sentence breaks, but there is no filler.

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 and a simple one-parameter interface, the description fully explains what the tool returns, how results are ordered, update timing, fallback behavior, language, and included fields. Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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% and the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 resource (today's main news stories in Romania), source (Agregator.ro), inclusion criterion (covered by at least two Romanian outlets), and ordering (most important first). This clearly distinguishes it from the financial sibling tools credite, curs_bnr, and dobanzi_depozite.

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 makes the tool's context clear — today's Romanian news — but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage is implied by the content description rather than guided.

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