T.C. Kimlik Numarası biçim kontrolü

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. It states the tool is fully offline and sends the number nowhere, addressing privacy concerns. It also clarifies that it only validates format, not actual identity, which is a key behavioral trait. This is useful context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 concise with three sentences, each providing essential information. The key purpose is front-loaded, and safety/limitation notes are efficient. No redundancy or filler 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, simple validation), the description is complete. It covers the validation logic, constraints, behavior, and limitations. The output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. The tool is a straightforward utility, and everything an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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?

The schema already describes the parameter tckn as '11 haneli numara' (11-digit number), so the description doesn't need to repeat it. However, the description does add context like the first digit cannot be zero and the checksum validation, which gives more meaning to the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description adds slight value.

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's purpose: it validates the checksum of a Turkish national ID number. It specifies the format (11 digits, first digit cannot be zero), and it distinguishes itself from validating a person's existence, which is a common alternative use case. This differentiates it from siblings like dogrula_vkn (tax ID) and dogrula_iban (IBAN) without needing to compare schemas.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to check the format/checksum of a T.C. Kimlik Numarası. It also explicitly states when not to use it: it does not verify the person's existence, suggesting alternative usage for identity verification. However, it doesn't name specific alternatives like a lookup service, but the exclusion is clear.

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