hu_fin_check_currency

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the tool returns 'status and effective date,' which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or how it behaves if the reference is not found, which is a notable gap for a check-type tool.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately state the return values. There is no redundant or filler content, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers both purpose and return values, which is sufficient for basic invocation. It stops short of explaining the exact format of 'status' or possible error conditions, but those are not critical for a simple read-only check.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a descriptive example ('MNB rendelet 2/2015'). The tool description only restates that it checks a 'provision reference,' adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's specific verb ('Check') and resource ('MNB regulatory provision reference') with a precise scope ('currently in force'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hu_fin_search_regulations or hu_fin_get_regulation, which focus on searching or retrieving regulations rather than checking their current force.

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 implies usage when one needs to verify whether a specific provision is in force, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No competing tools are mentioned or excluded, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the verb 'Check'.

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