Validate Vergi Kimlik No

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, and 'Offline' merely corroborates openWorldHint=false. The genuinely additive disclosure is the 11-digit fallback to TCKN validation, which is a real behavioral quirk not visible in the schema — but the description says nothing about what is returned (boolean vs. error) or how invalid input is reported.

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, the digit-length constraint is front-loaded, and no words are wasted. Ideal size for a single-purpose validator.

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 output schema, the description is the only place return semantics could be documented, and it omits them entirely — an agent cannot tell whether to expect a boolean, a status object, or a thrown error. For an otherwise trivial tool this is the main remaining gap.

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 a bare string, so the description must carry the burden — and it does, specifying 10-digit VKN format and the 11-digit TCKN fallback. It stops short of stating whether whitespace, separators, or non-digit characters are tolerated.

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 (check the checksum) and resource (Turkish tax ID / VKN) with the exact digit length, so an agent knows precisely what is validated. It does not name the sibling validate_tckn as the preferred route for 11-digit input, leaving that differentiation implicit.

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 strongly implied: call this when you need to verify a Turkish tax number. However, it never states when NOT to use it, and given a validate_tckn sibling exists, the fact that 11-digit input is silently handled as a TCKN should have been framed as 'use validate_tckn instead for TCKN'.

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