convert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only hints at dependency on the source parameter but does not explain side effects, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only. Minimal transparency.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the action and includes an example. No unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 the tool has 4 parameters (3 required) and an output schema, the description provides adequate top-level context but omits details like expected currency formats (ISO codes?), available source values, and error handling. The output schema reduces need for return value explanation, but parameter guidance is lacking. Adequate but with gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, leaving all 4 parameters undocumented. The description adds only a vague reference to 'source's quote' and an example (USD<->ARS) which hints at currency formats but does not define valid values, meaning, or constraints for any parameter. Insufficient compensation.

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 action ('Convert an amount between currencies') and specifies the method ('using a source's quote') with an example (USD<->ARS). It distinguishes from siblings like get_fx_quote and reconcile by implying a direct conversion operation.

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 usage for conversion tasks but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives or prerequisites. The context of siblings suggests differentiation but the description does not articulate it.

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