check_document_name_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check whether' reasonably implies a read-only validation operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state the return behavior for valid versus invalid codes or whether it accepts partial codes. The output schema presumably mitigates this, but it is not shown.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core action and object. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 low-complexity validation tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the exact codelist (UNCL1001) and the purpose. It could mention whether the check uses a specific codelist version or returns the recognized code name, but these are minor gaps given the output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the 'code' parameter should be a UNCL1001 document name code to be checked, but it adds no detail about expected format, length, case sensitivity, or examples. This is adequate for a single simple parameter but not rich.

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 states a specific action ('Check whether') applied to a specific resource ('code is a recognized UNCL1001 document name code'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_document_name_codes and from check tools for other code lists like check_vatex_code.

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 purpose implies the usage: use this when you need to validate a single code against the UNCL1001 list. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternatives to prefer, such as list_document_name_codes for retrieving all valid codes.

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