enrich_amount_v1_enrich_amount_post

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the capability of context-aware currency targeting and the cost per request, but it does not disclose error behavior, return format, side effects, or any limitations. For instance, it does not explain what happens if the string contains no amount or how context affects parsing. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that processes unstructured input.

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 three short sentences plus a cost note, front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids fluff and is easy to scan. It could be slightly richer (e.g., mentioning typical use cases or output), but it is appropriately concise for the feature set.

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 has a nested context object with four subfields, yet the description only vaguely mentions 'Context-Aware currency targeting' without explaining the role of locale, timezone, transliterate, or target_currency. There is no output schema, so agents must infer what the tool returns. Given the moderate complexity and lack of explicit output documentation, the description is incomplete for an agent to reliably use the tool without extensive schema reading.

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 67%, with amount_string and decimal_mark having descriptive text, while context only has subfield descriptions. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema: it mentions context-awareness but does not clarify how to use the context parameter effectively. The amount_string description already provides strong semantics (e.g., handles all global symbols, targets monetary strings), so the overall parameter meaning is sufficiently covered for most cases.

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 that the tool extracts precise financial data from messy strings, identifying numeric values, ISO currency codes, and symbols. This is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from sibling enrichment tools (e.g., enrich_date, enrich_name). It is not a tautology and gives a clear high-level purpose, though it could be slightly more explicit about being for monetary amounts only.

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 main description does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but the amount_string parameter description provides strong usage guidance: 'USE THIS TOOL to extract precise float values and currency codes from unstructured text' and explicitly warns 'DO NOT use this tool for non-monetary numbers like IDs or phone numbers.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use signals, which is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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