Set currency symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the character limit and provides examples, but does not mention persistence, side effects, or error behavior. For a simple setter, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the format is immediately understandable.

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, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core behavior and constraints. However, it does not clarify whether the setting is global or per-list, which could be inferred from the schema but is not stated.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that the symbol is 'shown next to prices' and gives examples. The schema already defines length constraints, so the description complements it well.

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 the tool's function: setting the currency symbol shown next to prices. It uses a specific verb ('Sets') and identifies the resource/scope. There is no sibling with a similar purpose, so it fully distinguishes the tool.

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 implies usage ('Sets...') but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention any prerequisites. Since no sibling tool does this, alternatives are not relevant, but context about the scope (e.g., global vs list-specific) is missing.

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