Batch Validate IBANs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add value beyond that. It adds per-IBAN cost, the 100-IBAN limit, and the return summary fields, which are useful behavioral details. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core capability, then gives explicit usage triggers, return shape, and cost. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, and the structured sections make it easy to scan.

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 rich annotations, complete input schema, and an output schema, the description adds exactly what is missing: cost model, batch limits, return-summary fields, and when-to-use guidance. Nothing an agent needs to select and call this tool correctly is omitted.

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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter with min/max constraints and a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual usage and pricing but does not materially redefine the parameter's semantics.

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?

Description states a precise action ('Validate up to 100 IBANs in a single call') on a specific resource, and explicitly contrasts with validate_iban. The tool's purpose and scope are unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit 'USE WHEN' conditions including pasting lists, cleaning CSVs, deduplicating databases, and triaging payout lists, plus guidance on when not to use it (repeated validate_iban calls). Names the sibling alternative directly.

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