Check Vatex Code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only behavioral disclosure. It accurately conveys a non-mutating membership check, but it does not explain input handling details such as case sensitivity, normalization, or how invalid or unrecognized codes are represented. These gaps prevent a higher score.

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 description is a single clear sentence with no repetitive or extraneous content. The action and subject are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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, the description provides the essential purpose and parameter meaning. The main missing piece is explicit routing to list_vatex_codes or other related tools, but the simplicity of the check makes the definition largely 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 schema only defines 'code' as a string with no description, so the description adds meaningful domain context: the code is a VATEX VAT exemption reason code and is tested for recognition. It does not provide format or examples, but the single parameter is scoped well enough for correct invocation.

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 precise action, 'Check whether,' and a specific resource, a recognized VATEX VAT exemption reason code. It clearly distinguishes this from list_vatex_codes and other check_* sibling tools by naming the VATEX domain and the membership-test behavior.

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 by saying 'Check whether *code* is recognized,' but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_vatex_codes for enumerating valid codes or state when not to use this tool. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and sibling pattern.

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