check_document_name_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a non-mutating membership check, but does not state how unrecognized codes are represented in the output, whether matching is exact/case-sensitive, or whether any normalization occurs. For a read-only check tool this is acceptable but minimal.

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?

One sentence, directly front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes useful information.

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, read-only membership test with an output schema available, the description provides essential selection and invocation context. It does not elaborate on output or error semantics, but the output schema can carry that information; the only minor gap is implicit usage guidance.

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 provides a bare string type with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by defining the parameter as an UNCL1001 document name code to test, adding domain meaning beyond the schema. It stops short of providing format examples, but for a single scalar code parameter this 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 a specific verb ('Check whether') applied to a precisely named resource ('UNCL1001 document name code'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list codes or check different codelists.

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 verb 'Check whether' implies a single-code membership test, and the sibling set suggests list_* tools are for enumeration. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_document_name_codes or other check_* tools, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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