validate_kz_iban

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details. It mentions the validation algorithm but does not state what happens for invalid input (e.g., returns boolean, throws error), nor does it describe any side effects or required context. This is a significant gap for a validation tool.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It contains no redundant words and is well-structured for a simple validation tool.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value or validation result semantics, and it does not cover edge cases or required preconditions. A validation tool should describe what the agent can expect as a valid or invalid result.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not add parameter details beyond the name 'iban' and the inferred type 'Kazakhstan IBAN'. It does not specify expected format, length, example, or prefixes, so the agent must rely on the parameter name alone.

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 a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('Kazakhstan IBAN'), and even names the algorithm (ISO 7064 mod-97). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_iin, which targets a different identifier type.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you need to validate a Kazakhstan IBAN. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from other validation tools beyond the resource name, so the context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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