get_rates_authenticated

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: authentication requirements (AllRatesToday API key), rate limit characteristics ('higher limits'), and input format for targets ('comma-separated'). However, it doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, or what 'higher limits' specifically means compared to other tools.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the most important information. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core purpose and key differentiators, the second covers authentication requirements, and the third provides a concrete example of parameter usage. No wasted words.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers authentication, rate limits, and multi-target format, but doesn't describe the return values, error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools beyond 'higher limits.' For a tool with 4 parameters and authentication requirements, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies the 'target' parameter accepts 'comma-separated targets like EUR,GBP,JPY' which is implied but not explicitly stated in the schema description. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get rates with higher limits and multi-target support.' It specifies the action ('Get rates') and key capabilities (higher limits, multi-target support). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_exchange_rate' or 'get_historical_rates' beyond mentioning higher limits and multi-target support.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when higher limits and multi-target support are needed, and when an AllRatesToday API key is available. It mentions 'comma-separated targets' as a specific usage pattern. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools.

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