check_reference_qualifier_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It accurately states the core behavior (checking recognition of a code) but does not add details such as whether the check is case-sensitive, how empty or malformed codes are handled, or whether the result is a simple boolean. It is not misleading, just minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the operation, the target resource, and the key parameter in one compact statement. Nothing is over-explained or redundant.

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?

The tool is a simple single-parameter checker, and the output schema is provided, so return value details are already covered. The description plus sibling context gives enough information for correct invocation. A minor gap is the lack of any mention of the codelist source or examples, but the simplicity lowers that need.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'code' refers to a UNCL1153 reference qualifier code, giving the parameter meaning beyond the bare type 'string'. However, it does not specify format, length, or accepted examples, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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') and a specific resource ('UNCL1153 reference qualifier code'), making it clear this tool validates a single code. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling list_reference_qualifier_codes and the other check_* tools by naming the exact codelist.

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 usage: when you have a code and want to verify it against UNCL1153. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the sibling list_reference_qualifier_codes, but the contrast with the sibling is fairly evident from naming conventions.

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