validate_iin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It mentions checksum validation and parsing but does not disclose what happens on invalid input, the return format, or whether it is read-only. This leaves critical behavioral aspects ambiguous.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose without extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for a validation tool. It fails to specify the return value (e.g., boolean, detailed report) or error handling behavior, leaving a significant gap in actionable context.

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 coverage is 0% and the parameter is simply a string named 'iin'. The description adds meaningful semantics by specifying 'Kazakhstan IIN/BIN' and 'checksum', which clarifies the expected format and validation logic. However, it does not detail the exact structure or parse output.

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 a Kazakhstan IIN/BIN checksum and parses it. It uses a specific verb ('validate', 'parse') and resource ('Kazakhstan IIN / BIN'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_kz_iban.

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 Kazakhstani IIN/BIN identifiers by naming them explicitly, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., validate_kz_iban for IBANs) or state when not to use it. The context is present but not fully elaborated.

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