Check Charge Reason Code

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly conveys a read-only predicate check, but does not disclose specifics like return value shape, error behavior, case sensitivity, or codelist version. The core behavior is transparent enough for a simple check.

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 states the operation and the parameter context 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 simple one-parameter predicate tool with an output schema provided separately, the description is largely complete. It names the exact input and the validation action. It could be richer by referencing the list_charge_reason_codes sibling, but that is already covered by usage guidance rather than core callability.

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 says 'code' is a required string, with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that the parameter is a charge reason code to validate, adding minimal but useful meaning beyond the schema. It does not provide format, length, or accepted value guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check whether') and resource ('charge reason code'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also clearly differentiates from the sibling 'list_charge_reason_codes' by indicating this is a membership validation rather than an enumeration.

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 use is implied: call this when you have a candidate code and need to know if it is recognized. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_charge_reason_codes or state when not to use this tool.

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