Validate El Salvador NIT (format)

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains behavior (format validation, hyphens flexible), and return structure ({valid, normalized, reason?}). Lacks details on normalization format (e.g., hyphens added or not).

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 concise sentences packed with essential information: purpose, format, input flexibility, and output structure. No wasted 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 simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all needed aspects: what it does, how input is handled, and what is returned. Fully sufficient for correct agent usage.

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?

One required parameter (nit) with 100% schema coverage. Description adds semantic value: clarifies input flexibility (with or without hyphens) and gives format example, beyond the schema's 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?

Description clearly states the tool validates the format of El Salvador NIT, specifying the exact digit pattern and common formatting. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like validate_dui by targeting a different identifier.

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?

Explicitly notes 'format-only' which implies it does not check existence or other validity, guiding when to use vs. more comprehensive validation. Context from siblings aids differentiation, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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