Currency Conversion (GBP/EUR/USD/TRY)

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it requires fresh date-stamped rates and fails closed without amounts if conditions are unmet. This gives the agent a clear expectation of success and failure modes.

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 deliver the purpose, scope, preconditions, and failure mode with no filler. The core action and limitations are front-loaded, making the tool easy to scan and understand.

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?

The description, together with the schema and annotations, gives a solid picture of when and how the tool behaves. An output schema exists so return details are not the description's responsibility. It could be slightly more explicit about whether all four currencies are returned at once, but the current wording is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 the price amount and currency well. The description reinforces that the input is a property asking-price amount and not a deposit or installment, but it does not add new parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: converting an entered property asking-price amount across GBP/EUR/USD/TRY. It also clearly delimits the tool's scope by excluding payment plans, deposit schedules, and other related calculations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like payment_plan.

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 gives clear context: this is only for currency conversion of an asking price, not for payment schedules or cost advice. It also states a precondition (complete, valid, fresh, date-stamped FX rates) and the failure behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for the excluded use cases, but the exclusion itself provides practical routing guidance.

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