Google Kurs Bi

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the page is JS-heavy so 'auto' routes to a browser, 'http' is tried first as a cheap path, and Google rate-limits/blocking can occur. That fallback ordering is not derivable from annotations or 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource identity and followed by parameter and rate-limit notes. Slightly informal/mixed-language phrasing but no wasted 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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the missing rate-limit caveat and engine fallback, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only sibling differentiation and engine enum values are absent.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and mostly does: currency examples and the empty-string default, plus engine behavior ('http' cheap first, browser for JS-heavy pages). It never enumerates the valid engine values, leaving some ambiguity for a 0%-coverage 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?

States a specific resource: Bank Indonesia transaction rates (buy/sell) from the official BI table. Clear verb+resource, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling google_fx_rate, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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?

Provides operational guidance (wait or switch to an RSS-based tool when blocked) but gives no explicit when-to-use-this vs google_fx_rate or other rate tools. Currency semantics ('kosong = semua') are implied usage rather than selection guidance.

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