validate_legal_national_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds the useful constraint that the input is 11 digits and checksum-verified, but says nothing about what a validation result looks like, whether Persian digits or separators are tolerated, or how whitespace is handled.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the exact identifier, with no padding. Every element 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover the return contract (boolean vs error payload) and the digit/normalization rules. Neither is present, leaving a simple but under-specified tool for an agent to call blindly.

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 single 'value' property has no description, but the description partially compensates by defining the expected input as an 11-digit legal-entity ID. It still omits accepted character set (Persian vs Latin digits), separators, and normalization behavior.

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?

Specific verb (validate) + resource (11-digit Iranian legal-entity national ID), with the Persian term and English gloss clarifying the exact identifier type. The 'legal-entity' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling validate_national_id, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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: an agent can guess this applies to company/legal-entity IDs rather than personal national IDs. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over validate_national_id, nor any note on prerequisites or failure handling.

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