convert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the weekend/holiday fallback to the most recent working day, the presence of a `note` explaining the substitution, and the returned fields. It does not cover error behavior (unsupported currency codes, non-positive amounts), leaving a minor gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the return values, then the non-obvious date behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still helpfully names rate_date and note. Combined with the fallback rule, it is nearly complete; only error/validation behavior for invalid currencies or amounts is unaddressed.

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 baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine meaning on top by explaining how `date` behaves on non-working days and that omitted dates yield the latest rate. It adds little beyond the schema for amount/from_currency/to_currency, but the date semantics are a real contribution.

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 verb (Convert), resource (an amount from one currency to another), and scope (at the ECB reference rate). This cleanly separates it from sibling tools like latest_rates, historical_rate and rate_timeseries, which surface rates rather than performing a conversion.

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 operational context: omit `date` for the latest rate, and supply a date for a specific rate. It does not explicitly name or exclude the sibling tools (e.g. when to prefer historical_rate instead), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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