check_currency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool only returns status, not legal text, lists the possible statuses, and mentions dates and warnings. It does not discuss error behavior or permissions, but the read-only 'check' semantics and output categories are clearly conveyed.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, return values second, usage hint third, and exclusion last. Every sentence provides actionable information with no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return statuses, the historical-date parameter, and when to use a sibling tool. It does not elaborate on the nature of 'warnings' or invalid inputs, but for a simple status-checking tool it is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces as_of_date for historical evaluation but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides for document_id, as_of_date, and provision_ref.

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 names a specific action ('Check if'), a precise resource ('Finnish statute or provision'), and the outcome ('in force (current or historical)'). It enumerates the returned statuses and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_provision, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance ('Check if... in force') and an explicit 'When NOT to use' rule with a named alternative ('use get_provision'). It also instructs when to pass as_of_date for historical evaluation, leaving little to inference.

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