convert

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context: amount must be zero or positive, currency restricted to USD/COP, default date is today in Bogota, and it uses the official rate. However, it does not disclose edge-case behavior (invalid currency, historical rate availability) or explicitly state that it is a read-only calculation.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action, and structured as an Args block that is easy to scan. Every sentence adds information; there is no 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?

For a simple conversion tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and all parameters. Minor gaps remain around usage differentiation and edge cases, but the core call semantics are complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: amount (constraint), currency (allowed values), date (format, default, timezone). This goes well beyond the bare type declarations.

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') plus resource (amount between USD and COP) and the rate basis ('official rate'). It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like get_trm/trm_series/today, which retrieve rate data or the current date rather than performing conversions.

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?

No guidance on when to choose convert versus siblings. The description implies its use case through the verb, but it does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. For example, it does not clarify that get_trm would be used to fetch the raw rate instead.

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