validate_iban

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the validation is offline (MOD-97), that it covers all SEPA countries, and that it accepts spaces in the input—all useful behavioral traits beyond the schema. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a simple validation tool the coverage is good.

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 with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, with scope and input-format details in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers offline behavior, SEPA scope, and input formatting. It omits explicit error-handling behavior, but that is not critical for a validation tool and the output schema likely captures return semantics.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by specifying that the IBAN may be provided with or without spaces, which is a concrete input-format requirement. The single parameter is clearly the IBAN string, and the description adds enough semantic detail to guide correct usage.

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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (IBAN), and clarifies it performs an offline MOD-97 checksum while also resolving bank name and BIC. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling validation tools like validate_vat and validate_eori, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 by naming the IBAN resource, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. The SEPA coverage hint adds context but does not formally differentiate use cases, so it falls short of explicit guidance.

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