List Currencies

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 known. The description adds the key behavioral detail of 'MCP-side pagination', explaining that pagination is handled by the server rather than the API. This goes beyond annotations and provides useful context for the caller.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and resource, the second lists return fields and use case. Every word earns its place; it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity, strong annotations (read-only), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the pagination behavior, leaving no critical gaps for the agent.

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%, with page and limit already described in detail. The description's 'MCP-side pagination' phrase adds minimal value because the schema's page parameter already states pagination is applied by the MCP server. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' and identifies the resource 'Recruit CRM currencies'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools (e.g., list_call_types, list_languages_and_proficiencies) by stating the exact rows returned and their purpose for candidate and job currency_id fields.

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 provides clear context: this tool returns currency rows needed for candidate and job currency_id fields. It implies when to use it (when currency options are needed) though it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. Since there is no direct sibling currency tool, this is sufficient.

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