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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It enumerates the validation components and mentions the modulo-11 check digit, but says nothing about what the tool returns, how failures are reported, or whether output is a boolean or structured result.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs the essential validation details without any filler. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain return values, error behavior, or success/failure signaling. While parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema, the absence of any return information leaves the definition incomplete for a validation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description largely restates the same concepts and adds only the modulo-11 detail for the check digit, which is marginal added meaning over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (validate), resource (ISO 6346 intermodal shipping container number), and breaks down the components (BIC owner prefix, equipment category identifier, serial number, modulo-11 check digit). The resource is unique among siblings, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from other validators like validate_iata_awb or validate_iban.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not name alternatives or conditions that would select this tool over sibling validators, leaving usage entirely implied by the tool name.

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