Valider Identifiant Fiscal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool validates and normalizes, but it does not describe validation rules, error behavior, normalization format, or any operational constraints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The bilingual repetition is compact and does not obscure the core purpose.

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 tool with two required parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not specify expected input formats for pays or identifiant, and the presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing input and behavioral context.

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 for both parameters. It clarifies that identifiant is a tax ID and mentions Africa, but it does not explain the expected format for pays or how the listed identifier types map to country values.

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: validating and normalizing an African corporate tax ID, with concrete examples (NCC, NINEA, NIU, NIF, KRA PIN, TIN). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool valider_telephone.

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 domain: it applies to African corporate tax identifiers. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion or prerequisite information.

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