check_vatex_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Check whether' clearly implies a read-only validation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose potential edge-case behavior such as case sensitivity, handling of empty strings, or whether invalid input returns false or throws an error. For a simple predicate this is adequate but not rich.

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. It front-loads the action and integrates the parameter name for direct schema linkage. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It identifies the exact codelist and parameter role clearly. It could optionally reference list_vatex_codes for discovering valid values, but that is a convenience, not a requirement.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explicitly referring to '*code*' and explaining that the parameter is the candidate VATEX VAT exemption reason code. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare 'string' type in the schema. It omits format constraints, but for a single-parameter check tool it is sufficient.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Check whether *code* is a recognized VATEX VAT exemption reason code.' It uses a specific verb ('Check whether') and names the specific resource (VATEX VAT exemption reason codes), clearly distinguishing it from sibling check_* tools like check_currency_code or check_country_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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a VATEX VAT exemption reason code needs to be validated. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the phrase 'VATEX VAT exemption reason code' implicitly routes the agent away from other check_* siblings. A pointer to list_vatex_codes for enumerating valid codes would be a minor enhancement.

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