check_eas_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Check whether' conveys that this is a read-only validation operation, but the description does not disclose edge-case behavior such as case sensitivity, handling of unrecognized codes, or whether it returns a simple boolean.

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 core action and resource immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 tool's low complexity, single parameter, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to understand the call. It could additionally reference list_eas_codes as the source of valid values, but this is a minor gap rather than a completeness failure.

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 code as a string with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that *code* is the EAS code being checked, adding semantic meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not provide format details, examples, or whether the code should be taken from list_eas_codes.

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 ('recognized Electronic Address Scheme code'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes this tool from the many sibling check_*_code tools by naming the EAS codelist explicitly.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent has a specific code and needs to verify membership in the EAS codelist. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative list_eas_codes for enumerating valid codes, nor does it state any exclusions.

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