bnr_year_archive

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the historical range (2005 onward), the per-day response shape, and that it is the full official history. However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, invalid-year handling, or whether data for the current year is complete.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, the availability limit, and the recommended usage pattern. The most important information is front-loaded and 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 single-parameter historical data tool with an output schema, the description covers scope, shape, availability, and intended use. It leaves a small gap around edge cases such as unsupported years, but not enough to hinder 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 schema only says 'year' is an integer, so the description adds crucial meaning by stating a year archive is requested and that data is available back to 2005. This implies the valid/usable range of the parameter, which is valuable given 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 names a specific resource — BNR's full official exchange-rate history for a given year — and scopes it with 'available back to 2005.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting the same per-day shape as bnr_latest_rates while clearly targeting historical data.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this for historical/backtesting questions.' It also gives a when-not instruction: 'rather than scraping day by day,' which tells the agent this tool is the efficient batch alternative to repeated daily calls.

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