validate_polish_regon

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

With no annotations, the description reveals the return format as a dict with valid, regon, and length. However, it does not disclose validation algorithm, side effects, or whether it makes external calls, leaving behavioral aspects partially unclear.

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 sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states purpose, second specifies return shape. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple validation tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention that validation includes checksum or registration checks to fully inform an agent.

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 provides only type (string) for parameter 'regon'; the description adds critical format semantics (9 or 14 digits), compensating for low schema coverage (0%).

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 verb 'Validate' and the resource 'Polish REGON' with specification of digit length (9 or 14 digits), distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_polish_nip and invoice-related tools.

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 implies usage for validating a Polish REGON number but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., validate_polish_nip), nor any prerequisites or context.

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