get_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what 'details' are returned, how not-found cases are handled, or whether the operation is read-only beyond the inherent meaning of 'Get'. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured annotations.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no wasted wording or redundancy.

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 with only one well-documented parameter, but there is no output schema and no annotation. The description is adequate for basic invocation, but it lacks any detail about the return payload, error behavior, or additional context that would make it fully self-contained for an 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?

The schema description for parameter 'id' already explains it is a currency code with examples (NZD, USD), and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description's phrase 'by code' adds minimal value beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 'Get details for a specific currency by code' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('currency by code'), clearly indicating a fetch-by-identifier operation. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_currencies, which enumerate all currencies.

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 'specific currency by code' clearly implies the tool is for retrieving a single currency when the code is known, as opposed to listing all currencies. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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