check_charge_reason_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It establishes that the tool performs a non-mutating membership check, but it does not mention codelist version, error behavior, case sensitivity, or the shape of the result (though an output schema exists). This is partial transparency, not full.

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 sentence with no filler, and the action and object are front-loaded. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 single-parameter validation tool with an output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: what to pass and what the tool determines. It omits codelist-version context and alternatives, but the low complexity of the tool limits the practical impact of those omissions.

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 only defines `code` as a required string with no description, so the phrase '*code* is a recognized charge reason code' adds the essential semantics that the parameter is the code to validate. It compensates for the 0% schema coverage for basic use, though it does not specify format, allowed values, or examples.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check whether') and a specific resource ('recognized charge reason code'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling check tools for other code types like check_allowance_reason_code. It states the tool's core function without being a tautology.

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 wording implies a validation use case—confirming whether a code is a member of the charge reason code codelist—but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_charge_reason_codes or other check_* siblings. No exclusions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use guidance are provided, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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