Letter-of-credit check (UCP 600)

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

The annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it discloses the sandbox 403 failure mode, defines the output shape (discrepancies with severity, honor/inquiry/refuse recommendation, cited UCP 600 articles), and explicitly limits the output to draft decision-support rather than a legal opinion. This is substantial supplementary transparency.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and inputs, the second summarizes outputs, and the third conveys authentication constraints and an important limitation. Everything earns its place and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the tool returns: discrepancies with severity, an overall recommendation, and the UCP 600 articles cited. It also covers the authentication requirement and the non-legal nature of the output. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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 100%, so the parameter objects are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that the three objects together form the presentation being validated, which is helpful framing but does not provide additional per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already contains. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Validate') and clearly names the resource and scope: a Letter of Credit presentation consisting of LC, invoice, and bill of lading, checked against UCP 600 rules. It is immediately distinguishable from the unrelated sibling tools in this toolset.

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 clearly establishes the context in which this tool is used — validating a documentary-credit presentation under UCP 600 — and provides an important prerequisite: a production API key is required and sandbox keys will fail with 403. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool competes for this use case.

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