Validate Polish Nip

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the algorithm, accepted formatting, and return shape, which is solid for a simple validation tool, though it does not cover malformed-input edge cases.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, algorithm/format, and return contract.

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?

For a single-parameter validator, the description covers what the tool does, how it validates, what formats are accepted, and what it returns. With an output schema already present, no critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema only says 'string', so the description adds important meaning: the NIP should be 10 digits and may include dashes or spaces. It stops short of giving examples or exact normalization rules.

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 uses a specific verb ('Validate'), names the exact resource ('Polish NIP'), and states the checksum algorithm, so an agent can distinguish it from validate_polish_regon and the invoice tools 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?

It states what input is accepted and implies when to use it, but it never describes when to prefer this over validate_polish_regon or when not to use it. The usage context is clear but not made explicit.

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