get_trm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that one rate often covers multiple days and that the answer includes its validity window, which is non-obvious behavioral context. It does not discuss error cases, but the basic query behavior is transparent.

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 tight and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a brief Args block, and one essential behavioral note. Every sentence adds information; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 single-optional-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, this is complete. It explains the input format, default behavior, timezone, and the non-obvious validity-window aspect of the result. No critical guidance is missing for correct 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?

The input schema only shows an optional string/null date with a null default, but the description adds the ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD) and clarifies that the default is 'today in Bogota.' This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it returns the 'Official USD/COP rate in force on a date.' This clearly identifies the tool's sole job and distinguishes it from siblings like trm_series (a series of rates) and convert (currency 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 makes the intended use obvious: retrieve the official rate for a specific date, defaulting to today in Bogota. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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