convert_amount_to_eur

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses that unknown currencies yield null, which is an important edge case. However, it does not mention output precision, invalid amount handling, or whether the latest ECB rate is always used.

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 one short sentence containing both the core purpose and a key edge case. Every word carries useful information, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with two simple scalar parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the main action and one important edge case. Since there is no output schema, it could state the success return format, but the tool's name and purpose make that reasonably inferable.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it adds no parameter-level detail beyond the obvious names 'amount' and 'currency'. It does not specify currency code format (e.g. ISO 4217) or any constraints on the amount.

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 ('convert'), resource ('amount'), target currency ('EUR'), and rate source ('ECB reference rate'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling fx_rates, which would provide raw rates rather than perform a conversion.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when an amount should be converted to EUR using ECB rates. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like fx_rates or state when not to use this tool.

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