Api entities currency retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that boilerplate, and its 'viewed or edited' wording weakly implies mutation capability that conflicts with readOnlyHint; it does not say what the response contains (a static enum of currency values) or that the result set is small and cacheable.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the one sentence conveys no resource-specific content, and the most useful fact (that it returns currency options) is absent.

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 zero-parameter retrieve endpoint with no output schema, the description carries the full burden of saying what comes back, yet it never states that the payload is the list of supported currencies. An agent cannot tell from the definition whether this returns one entity's currency, a currency code, or the enumeration of selectable currencies.

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 tool takes zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing because no parameters exist.

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 sentence 'API endpoint that allows entities to be viewed or edited' is generic DRF boilerplate that restates the title without saying the endpoint returns the currency choice list for entities. It names no specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the dozens of sibling entity endpoints (entities_list, entities_retrieve, entities_object_retrieve, entities_country_retrieve), and it never mentions 'currency' at all.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative entity endpoints, and no indication of when an agent should call this rather than ciso_assistant_api_entities_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_entities_country_retrieve. The agent must guess from the tool name alone.

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