snb_get_annual_exchange_rates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's burden is lower. It adds value by stating data goes back to 1980, returns Markdown and JSON, and explains default year range. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a concise opening sentence, a brief usage context paragraph, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value; no 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?

Given the tool's complexity (annual rates, multiple currencies, year range), the description covers purpose, source, return format, and appropriate use cases. It mentions the cube name and gives defaults. The output schema exists, so return format details are sufficient.

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 already has descriptions for all parameters (currencies, from_year, to_year, lang). The description's Args section largely repeats these, adding slight context like example currency IDs and default year calculation. Since schema coverage is high, the description adds little new parameter meaning.

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 retrieves annual average CHF exchange rates from SNB, specifying the cube name and that it returns yearly averages for all major currencies. It distinguishes from sibling tools like snb_get_exchange_rates (likely daily) by highlighting 'annual average' and multi-year use.

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 gives explicit use cases: multi-year trend analysis, budget planning, financial reporting. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., snb_get_exchange_rates for daily rates).

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