validate_postal_code

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 and largely fails it. It does not say what 'validate' returns (boolean? message?), whether it throws or reports failure, or whether formatting variations are accepted. The only behavioral hint is the 10-digit length constraint.

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 word ('validate', 'Iranian', '10-digit', 'postal code') constrains the operation. Appropriately sized for a one-parameter utility.

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?

For a validator with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description should at least state the result shape and accepted input format. It leaves the agent guessing at both, which is a material gap for a tool whose entire value is a pass/fail outcome.

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 'value' is a bare string, so the schema adds nothing. The description partially compensates by defining the expected payload as a 10-digit Iranian postal code, but it gives no detail on accepted formats, separators, or whether digits-only input is mandatory.

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 ('Iranian 10-digit postal code'), which is enough to separate it from siblings like validate_national_id or validate_sheba. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those validators, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating in prose.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the other validators in the sibling family, and no stated preconditions (e.g. raw digits vs. spaces/dashes). The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the word 'validate'.

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