osint_bic_swift_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool validates codes, which is a read-only operation, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as errors or limitations.

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 brief (three sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. The inclusion of Menu ID is slightly redundant given the tool name, but overall it is concise.

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?

The description explains input and basic validation checks but neglects to describe the output format or return value. For a simple tool with no output schema, this is a gap. The reference to describe_tool partially mitigates this.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates somewhat by indicating the parameter is a BIC/SWIFT code for international bank transfers. However, it lacks format details, examples, or constraints that would help the agent invoke correctly.

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 validates BIC and SWIFT codes and checks format, country, and branch information. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like osint_iban_validator.

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 the tool is for validating BIC/SWIFT codes but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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