Check Reference Qualifier Code

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

With no annotations, the description needs to disclose behavior. It clearly indicates a non-destructive validation check and identifies the codelist, which is good. However, it does not mention side effects, exact-match semantics, or what happens for invalid codes; the output schema is available but not described here.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence with no filler. It directly states the verb, object, and codelist, making it maximally efficient.

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 available, this description is largely complete: it identifies the input, the target codelist, and the check being performed. It lacks usage context relative to sibling list/check tools, but that is covered under usage guidelines; the invocation itself is adequately specified.

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 parameter is simply a string named 'code'. The description adds crucial meaning by explaining that this is a UNCL1153 reference qualifier code, which tells the agent exactly what value to supply. It does not provide format examples, but the semantic intent is clear.

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 states the resource precisely: whether a code is a recognized UNCL1153 reference qualifier code. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_country_code and list_reference_qualifier_codes because it names the exact codelist and operation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_reference_qualifier_codes. The description merely states what it does, so the agent must infer usage from naming conventions rather than from any explicit context.

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