check_payment_means_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. It discloses that the tool checks membership in a specified codelist, which is appropriate for a simple read-only check. However, it does not state whether an unrecognized code returns false or raises an error, nor any normalization or case-sensitivity behavior.

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 action and the resource immediately, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter codelist membership check, and an output schema exists, so the return shape does not need to be explained in the description. The codelist and input are clearly identified, which is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly; minor gaps around invalid input behavior and alternative tools are not fatal.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's bare 'code' string parameter. It does add essential semantics by identifying the value as a UNCL4461 payment means code, but offers no format details, examples, or additional constraints. This meets the minimum bar but nothing more.

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 a specific resource ('UNCL4461 payment means code'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from list_payment_means_codes and other codelist checkers by naming the exact codelist it validates against.

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 clearly implies this tool is for validating a single payment means code against UNCL4461, while siblings like list_payment_means_codes are for enumeration. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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