validate.lei

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

With no annotations provided, the description does a good job disclosing behavior: it validates check digits, returns normalized LEI and LOU prefix, and confirms well-formedness. It does not mention error handling or failure modes, but the core behavior is clearly described without contradicting any annotations (none exist).

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 three sentences, directly front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or verbose explanations.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description covers the validation standard, return values, and typical use case. It could improve by detailing error output for invalid inputs, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple 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% with the parameter 'lei' already described as '20-character LEI (case-insensitive).' The tool description adds context about the validation algorithm but does not provide additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already offers. 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?

The description clearly states it validates an LEI using ISO 7064 mod-97-10 check digits and distinguishes itself from sibling validation tools for other identifiers (e.g., validate.aba, validate.bic). It specifies the returned values (valid/normalized LEI, LOU prefix) and the use case (before GLEIF lookup).

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 gives a clear use case: 'Confirms a counterparty/vendor LEI is well-formed before GLEIF lookup.' This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. Still, it provides sufficient context for selection among many validation tools.

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