check_vat_category_code

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs recognition/validation against UNCL5305, but it does not describe behavior for unknown codes, malformed input, case sensitivity, or what it returns beyond the output schema. For a simple read-only check this is adequate 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no filler.

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 one-parameter validation check and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed in the description. The main gap is explicit usage guidance relative to list_vat_category_codes, but the low complexity and clear purpose keep the definition reasonably 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?

The input schema only says 'code' is a string, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds that the code must be a recognized UNCL5305 VAT category code, which gives essential semantics, but it does not give examples, format details, or allowed values.

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: a UNCL5305 VAT category code. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling check_* tools that validate other codelists, while its relationship to list_vat_category_codes is implied.

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 word 'Check' implies single-code validation versus listing all codes, but there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool instead of list_vat_category_codes or other check_* tools. The usage context is inferable from the description and sibling names, not stated.

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