Check Document Name Code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Check whether' clearly implies a non-mutating validation lookup, but it does not disclose return behavior, error handling, or case sensitivity. Because it is an apparently safe read-only check, the missing detail is notable but not critical.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope, and every word contributes to the tool's 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?

For a one-parameter validation tool with an output schema already present, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. It is slightly incomplete due to the lack of explicit usage or behavior notes, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major gap.

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 provides only a raw string property with no description, and coverage is 0%. The description adds essential meaning by identifying code as an UNCL1001 document name code, which compensates for the schema gap even though it does not specify format constraints.

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 and resource: checking whether a code is a recognized UNCL1001 document name code. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling check_* tools by naming the exact codelist standard, and from list_document_name_codes by framing it as a single-code validation rather than 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 inferable—validate a single UNCL1001 document name code—but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over list_document_name_codes or other check_* siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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