validate_partita_iva_format

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details the steps: strips whitespace, checks for exactly 11 digits, applies the official algorithm, and specifies the exact return format for success and failure. It does not cover side effects or permissions, but for a pure validation function, the behavioral traits are sufficiently disclosed.

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 9 lines, structured with clear sections for purpose, usage, steps, and output. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema provided), the description is complete. It explains the validation algorithm, return format, and workflow placement. There are no gaps given the context of sibling tools and schemas.

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 100%, and the description reinforces the schema by repeating whitespace stripping and digit count. It adds the modulo-10 checksum algorithm detail, but the schema already covers formatting. The additional value is marginal, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool validates an Italian Partita IVA for format (11 digits) and modulo-10 checksum. It specifies the action and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool validate_partita_iva by noting it is a standalone version.

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?

The description explicitly says to use this as step 1 in the invoice generation workflow before any other tool, and provides a when-not guideline by mentioning the equivalent validate_partita_iva() in header tools for when the validation result is needed without importing headers.

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