check_payment_means_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly communicates that this is a read-only membership/predicate check on the UNCL4461 codelist. It does not describe exact return behavior on invalid input, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that detail.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It clearly integrates the parameter placeholder and states the core operation efficiently.

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 predicate with an output schema, the description is complete enough: it gives the operation, the target codelist, and the parameter's role. The surrounding sibling tools further clarify where this tool fits.

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 string with zero description coverage, so the description compensates by using *code* and explaining that the parameter is the value tested against UNCL4461. It does not add format constraints, but the single parameter is self-explanatory in context.

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 a specific action ('Check whether') and a specific resource ('recognized UNCL4461 payment means code'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling codelist checkers like check_vatex_code and from list_payment_means_codes.

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 should be used to validate a single payment means code against UNCL4461, and the sibling list_payment_means_codes implies the alternative for retrieving all valid codes. However, the description does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to the alternative.

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