tax-validator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return contract (valid or invalid), but does not say what validation actually checks (length only vs. checksum/prefix) or whether the call has side effects, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Two short sentences with the input constraint and output stated up front. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 single-parameter validator with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the input shape, and the result. It falls short only on validation specifics and on routing relative to the check_if sibling.

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 0% and the single 'ice' parameter is an undescribed string, so the description must compensate. It partially does by stating the required 15-digit format, but adds no examples, accepted separators, or error behavior for wrong-length input.

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) and resource (Moroccan ICE number) plus the format constraint (15 digits) and the return values (valid/invalid). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling check_if by resource, though it never names or contrasts the sibling explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this versus check_if, no prerequisites, and no statement of what happens with malformed or non-Moroccan input. The agent is left to infer the use case from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return semantics ('valid or invalid') and the input constraint (7 or 8 digits). It says nothing about behavior on malformed input, whitespace/prefix handling, or why a value is invalid, which leaves meaningful gaps for a validation 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?

Two short clauses, zero waste, with the action and the format constraint front-loaded. Nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter validator with no output schema, stating the operation, the format, and the valid/invalid return value covers most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the exact failure semantics for malformed input.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the format constraint (7 or 8 digits) for if_number, which is genuine value beyond the bare parameter name, but it omits accepted character set, leading zeros, or whether separators are tolerated.

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) and resource (Moroccan IF number) plus the accepted format (7 or 8 digits), which lets an agent distinguish it from the check_ice sibling by resource name. It does not explain what distinguishes an IF from an ICE, but the resource is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose — call it to validate an IF number — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no note on when this is preferable to or different from check_ice, and no preconditions stated. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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