check_vatex_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It makes clear the operation is a membership/recognition test and implies no side effects, but it does not disclose case sensitivity, behavior for unknown or empty codes, or whether the lookup is local or remote.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and subject, with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 validation tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks only an explicit pointer to list_vatex_codes for enumerating valid codes and a note on edge-case behavior, but neither is necessary to invoke the tool correctly.

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 domain meaning by identifying the sole parameter as a VATEX VAT exemption reason code candidate, but it does not specify format, length, or where valid values come from beyond the code list context.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and a precise resource ('VATEX VAT exemption reason code'), so the tool's purpose is immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_vatex_codes and other check_*_code tools by naming the exact code domain.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_vatex_codes or the other check_*_code tools. The check/list sibling pattern implies a use case, but it is left entirely to inference.

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