validate_cuit

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) already cover safety, but description adds value by detailing the checksum algorithm and return format (valid, type, reason). No contradictions.

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?

Description is informative but slightly lengthy. Front-loaded with main action, but additional details like prefix explanation could be condensed. Still clear and structured.

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 presence of an output schema (as per context signals), description suffices with return structure and algorithm. Complete for the tool's validation purpose.

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% with a clear description of the 'cuit' parameter. Description adds meaning by explaining formatting examples and algorithm, going beyond bare schema.

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?

Clearly states it validates Argentine CUIT, explains what CUIT is, and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a specific tax ID type. Verb 'validates' plus resource 'CUIT' with algorithm details.

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?

Explicitly says to use when processing Argentine invoices, supplier registration, or AFIP compliance workflows. Provides clear context without listing exclusions, which is acceptable given the tool's specificity.

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