validate_customer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the action. It does not say whether this is a read-only external validation, whether it writes or updates a customer record, what data is returned, or whether there are side effects or failure modes.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, but it is too sparse for a tool with 9 parameters and no other structured context. It is concise rather than appropriately sized, sacrificing essential explanatory content.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description must fully contextualize the operation, but it does not explain return values, validation rules, or how to interact with the bank account details. It is not complete enough for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is only 44%, leaving many parameters (code, country, account_number, bvn, bank_code) undocumented. The tool description adds only 'with bank account' as a hint, which does not clarify the meaning of 'code', the relationship between BVN and bank account, or why all these fields are required together.

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') and identifies the resource ('a customer's identity') and the means ('with bank account'). This makes the core purpose clear and distinguishes it from sibling customer management tools like create_customer or get_customer, though it does not fully explain what 'validate' entails.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. While the purpose implies use for identity validation, there is no mention of when a customer code is needed or how this relates to the other customer tools listed.

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