Get historical exchange rates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is read-oriented ('Returns exchange rates') and imposes a date format, but it does not describe the response shape, possible errors, or rate-limit behavior. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core behavior and includes the relevant format. No filler or redundant content.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the main input requirement. However, without output schema or annotations, it would benefit from stating what the returned exchange rates look like, but the current text is minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does identify the date parameter's meaning and format, though the format is already encoded in the schema pattern. It adds no further detail such as accepted date range or business-day constraints.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Returns exchange rates') with a clear scope ('for a specific date') and the expected date format. The 'historical' in the tool name plus the date-scoped behavior distinguishes it from sibling privat24_business_get_exchange_rates.

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: retrieve exchange rates for a past/specific date. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over privat24_business_get_exchange_rates or mention any exclusions.

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