validate_rut_cl

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

Even with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds significant behavioral context: the algorithm, return format including error reason, and accepted input formats, providing a complete picture for the AI agent.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy: defines purpose, algorithm, usage, and return format. Front-loaded with key action verb 'Validates'.

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 output schema is referenced (though not detailed), the description covers input, algorithm, output structure, and error handling, making it self-sufficient for a validation tool with clear sibling differentiation.

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 description for the rut parameter, but the description adds valuable examples ('12.345.678-9') and clarifies formatting flexibility, enhancing understanding beyond the 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?

Description clearly states it validates a Chilean RUT, specifies the algorithm (modulo-11 checksum with 'K'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_cpf or validate_rfc_mx by emphasizing the Chilean context.

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 mentions when to use: processing Chilean DTE electronic invoices, supplier registration, or any Chilean tax compliance workflow, implying alternatives for other countries.

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