check_currency_code

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey a read-only validation check and implicitly promises a yes/no style result, but it remains silent on potentially important traits such as case sensitivity, behavior on malformed input, and whether unrecognized codes produce false or an error. For a simple predicate this is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 one focused sentence that leads with the core operation and uses a clear placeholder for the parameter. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundant filler or repetition of the schema.

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, one parameter, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meaning. It does leave usage routing vs list_currency_codes implicit and omits input-format edge cases, but these are minor for a check tool and no critical context is missing.

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 provides only a string named 'code' with no description, so the schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by defining code as an ISO 4217 currency code, adding real meaning beyond the raw type. It does not provide format examples or normalization details, but for a single parameter this level of semantic guidance is strong.

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 a specific action ('Check') on a specific resource ('ISO 4217 currency code'), and the use of 'whether' makes its validation purpose unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from sibling list_currency_codes, which would enumerate all codes rather than test a single one.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you have a code and need to verify that it is a recognized ISO 4217 currency code. However, the description never explicitly contrasts it with list_currency_codes or says when to prefer one over the other, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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