check_allowance_reason_code

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. 'Check whether' signals a non-mutating validity test, and the output schema covers return structure. However, it does not disclose edge behaviors such as case sensitivity, version of the code list, or handling of unknown/unrecognized values, leaving some behavior unspecified.

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?

A single clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter validation tool with an output schema, the description covers the core invocation. It leaves gaps around which codelist version defines 'recognized' and where to obtain valid code values (e.g., list_allowance_reason_codes), so it is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description clarifies that the lone string parameter is an allowance reason code and must be a recognized value. It does not enumerate valid values or direct the agent to list_allowance_reason_codes, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 names a specific operation ('check whether') and a precise resource ('recognized allowance reason code'), so an agent can tell it apart from check_charge_reason_code or check_vatex_code. It does not explicitly distinguish from list_allowance_reason_codes, but the verb 'check' versus 'list' provides enough differentiation.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need to validate a single allowance reason code. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or a pointer to the sibling list_allowance_reason_codes for candidate values, so it stops at implied usage rather than clear routing guidance.

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