get_precious_metals

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the tool provides prices for four specific metals in rubles per gram, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only retrieval, how the optional date affects results, or what happens when no date is supplied.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the key facts: source, metals, and units. There is no redundant or filler 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 simple read-only lookup with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It names the exact resources and units, while the schema covers the date format and default. It could be more complete by stating that all four metals are returned together and that the latest available date is used when date is omitted.

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 coverage is 100%, and the date parameter already has a clear format and default-behavior description. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource: official CBR accounting prices for gold, silver, platinum, and palladium in rubles per gram. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource construction, but the scope is unambiguous and distinct from currency-rate sibling tools.

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?

No usage guidance is provided: the description does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_daily_rates or get_currency_rate, nor does it mention alternatives. The intended use case is only implicitly inferable from the resource name and metal list.

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