validate_renavam

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

No annotations are available, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'validates' without disclosing whether it returns a boolean, throws errors, or handles invalid inputs. The output schema is present but not described.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence. While there is no wasted text, it lacks necessary details, bordering on under-specification rather than conciseness.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, simple validation), the description is minimally adequate but fails to explain the return format or side effects. The presence of an output schema does not reduce the need for clarity on behavior.

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%, but the description adds the constraint of '11 digits' for the value parameter, partially compensating for the lack of schema documentation. However, it doesn't specify the expected format or provide examples.

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 it validates RENAVAM, a specific Brazilian vehicle registration number, and mentions it has 11 digits. This differentiates it from sibling validation tools targeting other documents.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for usage. The description only states what it does, not when or how to apply it.

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