vt_get_exchange_rates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that this is cached reference data, which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations, and implies the rates may not be real-time.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the use case and caching behavior. 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 read-only tool with full schema parameter descriptions, the description covers purpose, use case, and data currency behavior. It does not describe the response format, but the absence of an output schema and low complexity make this a minor gap.

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%, and the view parameter is already described in detail. The description adds only high-level context ('currencies Viator supports') and does not add parameter-level details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, resource, and scope: get exchange rates between currencies Viator supports. It also references vt_get_availability_schedule as the upstream consumer, making its role clear among sibling tools.

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?

Gives a clear context: use it when converting supplier-currency prices returned by vt_get_availability_schedule. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the absence of a sibling exchange-rate tool makes the guidance sufficient.

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