validate.gln

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states 'Deterministic,' indicating consistent behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens on invalid input (error vs. boolean), auth requirements, or rate limits. For a simple validation, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 the core action and format, followed by context. No redundant or vague language; every sentence adds value.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, format, use case, and determinism. It could optionally explain the return behavior, but overall it is sufficient.

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%, with the schema describing the parameter as '13-digit GLN.' The description adds meaningful context: the check digit algorithm (GS1 mod-10) and the identifier's use in supply chains, going beyond the schema description.

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 validates a GS1 GLN, specifies the format (13 digits, GS1 mod-10 check digit), and explains the resource's purpose (identify trading parties/locations in CPG supply chains/EDI). This distinguishes it 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?

The description provides context for when to use the tool (CPG supply chains, EDI) but does not explicitly guide selection among sibling validation tools like validate.gtin or validate.sscc. Usage is implied but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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