Check Eas Code

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The phrase 'Check whether' implies a read-only validation with no side effects, but the description does not disclose edge-case behavior, error handling, or how 'recognized' is determined. It is adequate for a simple predicate 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 concise sentence with no filler. The action and target are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 present, the description covers the essential semantics and operation. It lacks explicit sibling-usage guidance and edge-case behavior, but the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema keep it mostly complete.

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% and the schema only defines 'code' as a string. The description adds that the parameter is an Electronic Address Scheme code, which is the key semantic meaning. However, it does not specify format, allowed values, casing, or normalization behavior.

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: 'Check whether *code* is a recognized Electronic Address Scheme code.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling codelist check tools for other code types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_eas_codes or other check_*_code siblings. It does not state when this validation is appropriate or when another sibling should be preferred.

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