get_international_exchanges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format (JSON with imports/exports/net balance) and gives example usage, but does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, error conditions, or data availability constraints. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, parameter list, return description, and examples. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It uses backtick formatting for parameters and examples, enhancing readability.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, one optional) and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers parameter formats, purpose, and example usage. However, it lacks notes on error handling or data availability, which would improve completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by specifying date format (YYYY-MM-DD), hour format (HH, 00-23), the default value for hour ('12'), and provides concrete examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 specifies the exact resource ('international electricity exchanges') and action ('Get') with a clear scope ('at a specific time'). It names the countries (Andorra, Morocco, Portugal, France) and the data returned (imports/exports, net balance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on demand, prices, etc.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (to obtain exchange data at a given time). It provides parameter formats and examples, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with sibling tools. However, the context of siblings (demand, prices, etc.) implies the tool's unique purpose.

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