validate_national_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that validation is checksum-based, which is useful, but says nothing about the return shape (boolean vs. error detail), accepted input format, or whether any normalization (e.g. Persian digits) happens first.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (verb, resource, method) 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a successful/failed validation returns and what input formats are accepted. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unable to predict the response or the expected argument format.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is documented only as an untyped-in-meaning string. The description does clarify that this parameter is the national ID code, adding real meaning, but it omits format constraints (digit count, Latin vs. Persian digits, hyphens).

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 names a specific verb (validate), a specific resource (Iranian national ID / code melli), and even the mechanism (checksum). This cleanly separates it from siblings like validate_card_number, validate_sheba, and validate_postal_code without ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other validators, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer from the name alone that this applies only to national IDs and not card or SHEBA numbers.

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