extract_ibans_from_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'extract and validate' but does not specify what validation entails (checksum, format?), how invalid IBANs are handled, or whether all found strings are returned or only validated ones. This lack of detail hinders agent understanding of side effects or 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?

The description is a single concise sentence, but it omits important details that could be added without significant length increase (e.g., return format, validation behavior). It is not overly verbose, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should hint at the return structure. It does not. Additionally, with sibling tools in the context, the description should clarify how this tool differs in output (e.g., returns a list of extracted strings). Without this, the agent may be uncertain about the tool's complete behavior.

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 has 100% coverage for its single parameter 'text' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond 'block of text', which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains the parameter adequately.

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 tool's action: 'Extract and validate all IBAN numbers' from a 'block of text'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'validate_iban' (single) and 'validate_bulk_ibans' (bulk validation without extraction) by focusing on extraction from raw text.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'validate_iban' or 'validate_bulk_ibans'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context that would help an agent decide between extraction and other validation methods.

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