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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a mutation (not read-only), requires permission checks, and has access restrictions for FREE businesses. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, and description aligns and enriches this.

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?

Description is concise with no waste, but could be slightly tighter by removing the redundant 'Business and community refer to the same thing' if the naming already implies it. However, each sentence adds value, and the structure is logical.

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?

Covers the action and usage guidelines well but lacks parameter descriptions and does not mention return values or side effects. Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema), more detail on the parameters 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not detail what values 'newCurrency' accepts (e.g., currency codes like USD). The parameter names are self-explanatory but lacking validation hints like enums or examples. Description does not sufficiently compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool updates a managed community base currency. Distinguishes from siblings like 'update_business_currency' by noting business and community are interchangeable, so the intent is unambiguous.

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 steps: check business permissions, note FREE businesses cannot use, call 'check_business_tool_access' before inputs, show grace-period warnings and resubscribe link, and never proceed if blocked. This gives 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.