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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the endpoint is paid, the auth mode is paid, and the price is $0.003 per call, which is useful behavioral context. But it does not explain return values, side effects, rate limits, or error behavior for a validation operation.

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 bloated with origin URL, hostname, brand, family key, endpoint, repeated keywords, and pricing metadata. While some information is useful, much of it does not help an agent select or invoke the tool, and the core summary is not 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?

For a simple one-parameter validator with no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how the input should be formatted. It provides use cases, auth, and pricing, but omits return values and parameter syntax, leaving key invocation details incomplete.

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?

There is one required parameter named 'value' with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies that 'value' is the Iranian company registration id, but it provides no format details, length constraints, digit rules, or examples to compensate for the empty 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Validate an Iranian company registration id (شناسه ملی اشخاص حقوقی).' It also lists aliases and keywords that clarify the resource. However, it does not explicitly contrast the tool with nearby siblings like iran_national_id or iran_economic_code, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Three concrete use cases are provided: supplier forms, checking a شناسه ملی for a legal entity, and merchant onboarding. This gives clear usage context, but the description does not state when not to use the tool or explicitly name alternative sibling tools for related identifiers.

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