getapi_validation_iban

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little: nothing about what a successful validation returns, what the BIC field does when supplied (or omitted), error/failure semantics for invalid IBANs, or rate limits. Despite the POST endpoint implying a submission, no mutability or side-effect context is given.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence pairing the operation with the resource, plus the route. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness comes at the cost of missing guidance rather than being deliberately economical.

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 validation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and parameters that include an undescribed 'bic' field, the description leaves too much unspecified: there is no statement of what 'valid' means, what the response contains, or whether BIC is required alongside IBAN. It is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently.

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% and the parameters live inside a nested body object, where 'bic' has no type or description at all. The description does mention IBAN and BIC, which maps loosely to the two body fields, but adds no format, length, or optionality detail beyond what the schema already constrains.

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 clear verb+resource ('Validate an international IBAN / BIC') and includes the endpoint path, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling validators like getapi_validation_vat or getapi_validation_email at a glance. It does not name a specific sibling, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of how it relates to the other validation tools in the family (email, VAT, DNSBL). The usage is only implied by the word 'Validate'.

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