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

The description reveals it is a write operation (update), states FREE businesses are blocked, and requires an access check with potential warnings. While annotations provide no behavioral details, the description adds meaningful context about preconditions and error handling, though post-update behavior is not described.

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 reasonably concise, starting with the purpose then moving to usage rules. Each sentence provides value, though it could be slightly more streamlined by combining related guidelines.

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?

The description covers prerequisites and access checks well, but lacks information about the output or side effects (e.g., whether the update triggers notifications). Without an output schema, more detail on what happens after a successful update would improve completeness.

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 0% with no descriptions. The description only mentions 'base currency' but does not explain the communityId parameter or the valid format of newCurrency (e.g., ISO code). Given the poor schema coverage, the description fails to add sufficient meaning.

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 states it updates the base currency of a managed community, clarifying that 'business' and 'community' are interchangeable. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the equivalence, though the presence of update_community_currency may cause confusion without explicit differentiation.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites: check business permissions, FREE businesses cannot use, call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, show grace-period warnings and a verified resubscribe link when access is blocked. This offers clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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