check_currency

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and adequately discloses that it returns document status (in_force, amended, repealed, not_yet_in_force), dates, and warnings, and that providing as_of_date enables historical evaluation. It does not reveal potential edge cases or limitations.

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 concise with two sentences. The first establishes the purpose, and the second lists outputs and a usage hint. No unnecessary words.

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 lists return fields (status, dates, warnings) and explains the as_of_date parameter, which is sufficient given no output schema. However, it lacks details on error handling or the exact response format.

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%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds only that 'as_of_date' is for historical evaluation, which is similar to the schema description. Minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 the tool checks if a Danish statute or provision is in force, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_provision' by focusing on currency status rather than full text.

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 explains when to provide the optional 'as_of_date' for historical evaluation, offering clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

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