exchange_rates_convert

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the lower bar applies. The description still adds genuine context the annotations don't: non-RON cross-rates are computed through RON and the result is rounded to 2 decimals, both of which affect what the agent gets back.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the two behaviors an agent would otherwise get wrong (cross-rate path and rounding). No filler whatsoever.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the important result characteristics (cross-rate derivation, 2-decimal rounding). It stops short of describing the response shape — e.g. whether a rate value is returned alongside the converted amount — which would fully close the gap.

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 100%, so every parameter (from, to, amount, date) is already documented with format and default semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying rates are 'current', which the schema's date default already conveys — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource — convert an amount between two currencies using BNR rates — which is clearly distinct from the sibling exchange_rates_list. It never names that sibling, so it falls just short of explicit differentiation, but an agent can still tell the two apart from the verb alone.

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?

Usage is implied by 'convert an amount between two currencies' rather than stated as when-to-use conditions. There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus exchange_rates_list or how to handle conversions whose date matters, leaving the routing inference to the agent.

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