converter_taxa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context ('juros compostos equivalentes') but does not state whether the operation is a pure calculation, what it returns, how invalid inputs are handled, or any side effects. This leaves important behavioral expectations implicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core conversion purpose and method, though it could have added parameter clarification without becoming verbose.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It does not specify the format of 'taxa_pct', the expected values of 'de' and 'para', or the return value, leaving the agent to infer critical details from the schema alone.

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 by explaining parameters. It hints at the values of 'de' and 'para' by mentioning 'anual' and 'mensal', but it never describes 'taxa_pct', the direction of conversion, or input units (e.g., percentage vs decimal). This is insufficient for a three-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Converte') and clearly specifies the resource ('taxa') and the conversion scope between 'anual' and 'mensal' with 'juros compostos equivalentes'. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like juros_compostos, which focuses on interest computation rather than period conversion.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for rate conversion but never mentions sibling tools or conditions that would favor converter_taxa over related tools like juros_compostos.

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