b24_crm_currency_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (CURRENCY, base flag, format, rate). It does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination or error handling, but given the annotations cover safety, this is acceptable.

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 extremely concise: two lines that immediately state the action and key output fields. Every word is necessary and front-loaded. No wasted text.

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, good annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials. However, it lacks explicit details about the scope of the list (all portal currencies?) and does not mention any constraints or behavior beyond listing. It is minimally complete.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (webhook_url and personal_webhook). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The 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 'List portal currencies' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the fields (CURRENCY, base flag, format, rate), which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like b24_crm_list, though the name itself differentiates it sufficiently.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, performance considerations, or what to do if the currency list is empty. The tool is simple, but explicit usage guidance is absent.

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