list_currencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden: 'List' implies a non-mutating, read-only operation and 'all' indicates unfiltered scope. It does not mention ordering, result shape, pagination, or permission requirements, but for such a benign read operation this thin disclosure is acceptable rather than misleading.

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 three-word sentence with zero redundant detail. It front-loads the verb and resource and every remaining 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single declarative sentence is nearly complete for a simple list call. The main absence is a description of what the returned currencies look like, but the tool's name and empty schema make its invocation requirements fully clear.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Schema description coverage is 100%, which meets the no-parameter baseline of 4; the description correctly keeps the input section silent.

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 (list) and resource (currencies), clearly stating the tool's scope. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as get_currency or create_currency, which keeps it below a 5, but the intent is unambiguous and distinguishable from 'get single 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 phrase 'List all currencies' implies this is the right tool when the agent needs the complete currency set, which is the implicit usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like get_currency for a single entity, but for a parameterless listing tool this implied guidance is minimally adequate.

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