check_currency

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable output details: status values (in_force/repealed/not_yet_in_force), in-force date, warnings, and optional cross-references, which go beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return values, usage advice, optional parameters, and cross-references. No sentence is redundant or off-topic.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return status, date, warnings, and optional related case law. It could be slightly more complete by noting behavior if the document is not found or invalid, but it is sufficient for a read-only legal checking tool.

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 all three parameters (document_id, as_of_date, provision_ref) are already documented. The description's mention of 'specific provision and date' adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema states, leaving the baseline at 3.

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 whether a Dutch statute or provision is currently in force, with a specific verb (check) and resource (statute/provision). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_provision or get_provision_at_date by focusing on legal validity status rather than content retrieval.

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 explicitly says 'Essential before relying on a provision — always check currency for legal advice,' providing a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, though siblings imply the alternative of retrieving provisions directly.

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