import_exchange_rates

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false; the description adds substantial context beyond them: the source tag applied, that imported rates are immutable and corrected only by a correcting entry, that daily rates land on each validity date rather than the determination date, and that a rate needing more than twelve decimals is rejected rather than rounded. It does not explain the role of the required idempotencyKey or what a refused payload looks like on return.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the source tag, then the payload/series contract, then the date-placement rules. Slightly padded by the 'CONSEQUENCE:' line, which largely restates the opening sentence, but the rest of the detail earns its space.

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 five-parameter import with no output schema, the description covers the semantics that matter most: payload provenance, series pairing, date placement, unit scaling, and precision refusal. The gaps — idempotencyKey behaviour and the unused `currencies` filter — are real but secondary, and idempotentHint partially covers the former.

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 carry the burden. It does this well for `payload` (verbatim response body, self-identifying series) and `series` (refuses mis-paired payloads), but `workspaceId`, `idempotencyKey`, and `currencies` receive no explanation at all — three of five parameters remain undocumented.

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 ('Import a published BAZG rate payload into the rate store as source='rate_api'') and immediately names the upstream sibling (describe_rate_feed) that produces the payload. An agent can distinguish it from record_exchange_rate and list_exchange_rates without opening any schema.

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?

Clear context for use: the payload must be the verbatim response body from the endpoint describe_rate_feed names, and passing `series` guards against a mis-paired payload. It never explicitly contrasts with the manual path (record_exchange_rate) or states when not to import, so the alternative-routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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