spell_currency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: it handles major and minor units with grammatical agreement and uses locales and currency codes. However, it does not explain behavior for edge cases like zero amounts, large numbers, or unsupported currencies. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with an example. It front-loads the core purpose and is free of any extraneous text. Every part earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format well. It covers the main use case but lacks details on parameter defaults, supported currencies, and error handling. For a tool with 3 parameters and 1 required, it is reasonably complete but could be more thorough.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds value by explaining the overall output format and the inclusion of grammatical agreement, but it does not provide additional constraints or examples for each parameter beyond what the schema offers. Baseline of 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 spells out a currency amount in full Arabic words, including major and minor units with grammatical agreement. It provides a concrete example, making the purpose unmistakable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arabic_to_words and format_currency.

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 when to use the tool (when you need Arabic spelling of a currency amount), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or mention when not to use it. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or edge cases.

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