validate_polish_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states the return behavior ('return whether it is valid plus its normalized form') and the network behavior ('Purely local checksum validation — makes no network calls'), which is valuable context beyond the schema. It does not describe error handling or edge cases, but for a validation tool the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by a crucial behavioral note. Every word contributes value, with no repetition or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (5 identifier types), detailed schema, and absence of output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it validates, what it returns, and that it is offline. It does not discuss potential error conditions or the exact format of the normalized form, but the schema and description together provide enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters, including the enum of identifier types and formatting flexibility. The description adds context about the overall outcome (validity + normalized form) but does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('Validate') and a specific resource ('Polish identifier') while enumerating all identifier types (NIP, PESEL, REGON, KRS, IBAN/NRB). It distinguishes itself from sibling network-based tools by explicitly noting 'Purely local checksum validation — makes no network calls', making it unmistakable what this tool does.

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 this tool vs alternatives: for offline, checksum-based validation of Polish identifiers, as opposed to network-dependent services like check_vat_whitelist or check_vies. It clearly states 'makes no network calls', which helps an agent choose this tool for local validation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusions, so it stops short of full guideline clarity.

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