Convert between USD and COP at official TRM

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses provenance (TRM certified by the Superintendencia Financiera, datos.gov.co dataset 32sa-8pi3), which is real behavioral context. However, it omits operational traits an agent needs: what happens when the requested date has no published TRM (weekends/holidays), result precision/rounding, and whether any auth or rate limit applies.

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 tight sentences: the core action and date default come first, then source provenance. No filler, no redundancy with the title or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should hint at the return shape, and for a date-driven exchange-rate tool the handling of non-published dates is a material omission. Provenance and defaulting are covered, but the agent still lacks enough to predict failure or output format.

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 all three parameters are already documented, and the description's 'defaults to today' merely restates the schema's 'omit for today'. No additional meaning (e.g. direction semantics, expected magnitudes) is added, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb (Convert) and resource (USD/COP amount) and pins the rate basis to the official TRM of a given date. It implicitly separates itself from get_trm/get_trm_range by being a conversion rather than a lookup, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It states the default behavior (date omitted = today), which frames usage, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over get_trm or get_trm_range. The only routing signal is the word 'Convert', left for the agent to infer.

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