check_eas_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'checks whether' a code is recognized, without specifying return type, error handling, case sensitivity, or behavior for empty/invalid input. These details are left to the output schema or inference.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the description contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 one-parameter check tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It leaves out usage context, alternatives, and behavioral specifics, though the tool's simplicity and sibling list partially compensate. An agent could call it correctly, but some context is left implicit.

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 provides no description for the 'code' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by clarifying that 'code' is an Electronic Address Scheme code whose validity is being tested, giving it domain meaning beyond the bare string type. It does not add format or constraint details, but it does establish the parameter's role.

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 verb ('Check') and resource ('recognized Electronic Address Scheme code'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_vatex_code and check_country_code by naming the exact registry being checked.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context of sibling tools (e.g., list_eas_codes, check_vatex_code) implies this tool is for validating a single EAS code, but the description itself does not state this or exclude alternatives.

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