osint_phone_validator

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 what the tool does but does not disclose key behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling behavior.

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 relatively concise with two sentences. The inclusion of 'Menu ID: phone_validator' is slightly redundant given the tool name, but overall structure is efficient and front-loaded with 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose but omits details about return values, error handling, and formatting behavior. The deferral to describe_tool indicates that this description is not self-contained.

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%. The description adds context for the country_code parameter by mentioning country code detection, but does not specify valid formats or values for either parameter. Some meaning is added, but significant ambiguity remains.

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 and formats phone numbers, checks international formats, detects country codes, and analyzes number types. It distinguishes itself from sibling OSINT validators (e.g., credit card, IBAN) by explicitly targeting phone numbers.

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 usage for phone number validation but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions using describe_tool for full guidance, deferring context rather than providing it directly.

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