make_fx_report

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the tool writes an .xlsx file to disk, relative paths resolve against the server working folder, and it returns both the save path and per-currency summary. It stops short of stating whether an existing file is overwritten, what happens on API failure, or rate/availability constraints of the upstream source.

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?

One front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact per-parameter list; every line adds information and nothing repeats the schema titles verbatim. Structure makes scanning for a specific parameter trivial.

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 six-parameter tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, all parameters, data source, and return shape, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Remaining gaps are edge-case behavior (overwrite semantics, error handling, and precedence between days and start/end) rather than core invocation detail.

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 coverage is 0% (only titles and defaults), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: symbols is comma-separated with an example, base gets an example, start/end are fixed to YYYY-MM-DD with a stated fallback when omitted, and output is a .xlsx path relative to the server working folder. The interaction between an explicit start/end and the days parameter is left implicit, which keeps this from a 5.

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 artifact ('엑셀 보고서를 만든다') plus the exact data domain and source ('공개 환율, ECB 기준, Frankfurter API' and period-based aggregation). There are no siblings to disambiguate against, and an agent can tell precisely what the tool produces without reading the schema.

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 implies the use case (gathering public FX rates into a spreadsheet) and explains default date behavior ('없으면 오늘부터 days일 전까지'), but it never states when to choose this tool over other approaches nor any preconditions such as network access or availability limits of ECB data. Usage must be inferred from the purpose sentence.

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