validate.aba

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Discloses checksum algorithm (3-7-1 weighted mod-10), purpose of catching transposed digits, and return fields (valid, routingNumber, district). Fully transparent for a read-only 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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and method, second sentence adds returns and use case. No extraneous words.

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?

Single parameter with schema coverage, no output schema, but description fully explains what the tool does, how it works, what it returns, and when to use it. Complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 already describes the parameter as '9-digit ABA routing number' with 100% coverage. Description adds context about the validation algorithm but no new parameter-level details. 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?

Specifically states it validates a US bank ABA routing number using a weighted mod-10 checksum, distinguishes from regex-only validation, and describes return fields. Clearly differentiates from sibling validation tools for other identifiers.

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?

Implies use for ABA routing number validation, especially in ACH/wire contexts. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings, but context is sufficiently clear.

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