check_reference_qualifier_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Check whether' implies a read-only validation predicate, but the description does not state the return format or behavior for unrecognized codes. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description itself is thin on behavioral 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 sentence with no filler, and the key verb and resource are front-loaded. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 core invocation contract is present: the agent knows what to pass and what question the tool answers. A pointer to list_reference_qualifier_codes would improve completeness, but nothing essential for a correct basic invocation is missing.

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 only defines a string named 'code', so the description adds meaningful domain context by identifying it as a UNCL1153 reference qualifier code. However, it does not provide format details, examples, or case-sensitivity guidance, leaving the parameter only partially explained despite 0% schema description coverage.

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 operation, 'Check whether', applied to a specific resource, a 'UNCL1153 reference qualifier code'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools such as list_reference_qualifier_codes, which enumerate codes rather than validate a single one.

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 usage is inferable from the predicate semantics, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_reference_qualifier_codes. It does not mention exclusions or provide context about when checking a single code is appropriate.

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