Convertir Devise

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that conversion works offline and supports a custom rate, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It omits what happens without a rate, rounding/precision behavior, and error handling for unsupported currencies, leaving notable gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core action and currency scope. The bilingual restatement doubles length but is efficient and non-redundant in content.

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 and the input schema is fully documented, so the description needn't explain return values. Given the low complexity of a currency conversion, the definition is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around default rate sourcing and precision.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including the optional taux. The description reinforces the offline/default-rate versus custom-rate distinction but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description names a specific verb (convertit/converts) and resource (montant/devise) and enumerates the supported currencies XAF, XOF, EUR and USD. It does not explicitly contrast itself with related siblings like formater_montant or calculer_tva, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies context by mentioning 'hors ligne ou avec taux personnalisé' (offline, or with a custom rate), which tells the agent this works without a live rate feed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no naming of alternatives such as formater_montant, so usage is only implied.

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