validate_iban

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return information (country, format validity, etc.) but does not mention side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or authentication requirements. As a validation tool, it is likely read-only, but this is not stated.

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 that covers the tool's purpose and output. No redundant information. Could be slightly improved with structured formatting, but it is 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but lacks details on error handling, output structure, or edge cases. It meets minimal completeness but leaves room for improvement.

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 single parameter 'iban' described as 'The IBAN to validate.' The description adds the context of return fields but does not elaborate on the parameter format, constraints, or examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 (IBAN number) and lists specific return fields (country, format validity, check digit result, bank details). It distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_ibans_from_text and validate_bulk_ibans by focusing on a single IBAN validation.

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 use for single IBAN validation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., validate_bulk_ibans for multiple IBANs, extract_ibans_from_text for extraction). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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