Validate T.C. Kimlik No

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: it clarifies the operation is purely a checksum test (not a registry lookup of whether the number is real) and that it runs offline so the PII is never transmitted — exactly what an agent needs before passing an ID number in.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The operation is front-loaded and the privacy qualifier follows immediately, so every sentence 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 the description never says what comes back — a boolean, a validity flag plus reason, or a thrown error — nor how invalid-format input is treated. For a one-parameter validator with annotations covering safety, that return-shape gap is the main outstanding omission.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it identifies the parameter's meaning as a T.C. Kimlik No but gives no format guidance (11 digits, digits only, no spaces) that would prevent malformed input.

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 and scope ("check the checksum") against a specific resource (Turkish national ID number, T.C. Kimlik No). Naming the exact ID type implicitly separates it from the sibling validators validate_vkn (tax number) and validate_iban, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 holding a TCKN value will know this is the tool for it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite statement, and no routing to the sibling validators for other identifier types — the distinction is left to the name alone.

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