Check Payment Means Code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only membership check against UNCL4461, but it does not state edge-case behavior such as how unrecognized codes are handled, case sensitivity, or whether invalid input returns false versus raising an error. The output schema may clarify return shape, but behavioral details beyond a simple predicate are not disclosed.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The key information—the code to check and the codelist standard—is front-loaded, and every word contributes to the purpose. This is appropriately concise for a simple validation tool.

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 single-parameter predicate with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it names the input and the codelist standard. However, it lacks any usage context, guidance on alternatives, or note on error/edge-case behavior, so an agent would still need to make assumptions about how to invoke it correctly in a broader workflow.

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. It does add meaning by tying the generic 'code' property to a UNCL4461 payment means code, which is essential context. However, it does not describe format, length, case sensitivity, or accepted variants, leaving the parameter only minimally documented.

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 names the exact resource (UNCL4461 payment means code), making the tool's membership-test purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list_payment_means_codes, which would enumerate the same codelist rather than validate a single code.

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 sibling alternatives such as list_payment_means_codes or other check_* validation tools. Usage is only implied by the word 'check', so the agent must infer the validation-vs-listing distinction without explicit direction.

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