is_valid_scheme_code

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

Without annotations, the description adds value by disclosing the return structure (dictionary with 'valid' and 'scheme_code' fields). It could further mention that the operation is read-only and idempotent.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args/Returns format is slightly more verbose than needed but still efficient.

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?

For a simple boolean validation tool, the description covers the return fields. However, it does not explain exactly what constitutes a valid AMFI code, which might be inferred but is not explicit.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the parameter 'scheme_code' is numeric as a string and provides an example ('e.g., 119597'), adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'check', the resource 'scheme code', and specifies it's a valid AMFI scheme code, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch or list schemes.

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 the tool is for validation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_scheme_codes or search_scheme_by_name.

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