check_currency_code

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 clearly communicates a read-only validation behavior ('Check whether'), but it does not disclose case sensitivity, exact input format requirements, or error behavior. For a simple validation tool this is adequate but minimal.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the core behavior with no filler or redundancy. Every word 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description covers the essential purpose. It does not mention input formatting nuances, but the ISO 4217 standard is well-defined and the missing detail is minor relative to the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, and the description only identifies the parameter as an ISO 4217 currency code without adding format details (e.g., 3-letter uppercase), examples, or constraints. It adds slight semantic context but leaves significant gaps, especially since the schema itself only says 'string'.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Check whether') and a precise resource ('recognized ISO 4217 currency code'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling check_* tools for other code types such as check_country_code and check_vatex_code. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 the usage scenario—verifying whether a string is a valid ISO 4217 currency code—and the precise standard name differentiates it from similar siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over list_currency_codes or the other check_* tools, leaving selection to inference.

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