tool_currency

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only lists input/output fields. It does not mention currency code format, data source, rate timing, error handling, or any side effects. The only behavioral hint is that it produces a converted amount and rate.

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 structure is clean with separate 'Parameters' and 'Outputs' sections, and the description is short. However, it is under-specified; while not verbose, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it less effective than a tool description that includes a purpose statement.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify expected currency codes, data source, rate context, or edge cases. The description provides only minimal context, leaving the agent to guess critical operational details.

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 description adds semantic value by clearly distinguishing parameters (amount, from, to) from outputs (converted, rate), a distinction the schema does not make. However, it does not elaborate on the format or allowed values of the parameters, so it only partially compensates for the schema's terse property descriptions.

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 labels the tool as 'Currency' and lists parameters (amount, from, to) and outputs (converted, rate), which implies currency conversion. However, it lacks an explicit verb or action statement, so the tool's purpose is only inferred from field names rather than clearly defined.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no context, and no exclusions. The description is a bare listing of parameters and outputs, providing no situational cues.

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