usci_check_character

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'Offline; queries nothing,' which clarifies that no network calls are made, and implies it is a pure computation. However, it does not describe edge cases, error handling, or output format, leaving some ambiguity for a simple tool.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a practical use-case hint. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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?

For a simple pure-function tool with no output schema, the description implies the return value (the expected check character) without explicitly stating its type. It covers the offline behavior and intended usage, which is largely sufficient. Missing details like return type or error conditions are minor for this complexity.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter first17, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a slight clarification by mentioning 'first 17 characters' and 'Unified Social Credit Identifier,' which aligns with the schema. No additional syntax or constraints are added beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states the tool computes the expected check character for the first 17 characters of a USCI. It is specific about the verb and resource, and the purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool validate_usci, though the use-case hint ('verifying a transcription') indirectly suggests its distinct role.

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 provides a clear when-to-use scenario: 'Use when verifying a transcription: compute what the 18th character should be and compare it with what is printed.' It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over the sibling.

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