makani_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds two things beyond that: the fact that no API key is required (an auth constraint worth surfacing) and the conditional return behavior (emirate returned in both English and Arabic only when valid). That conditional is useful context even with an output schema present.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the return/emirate detail follows as secondary. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter validation tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the check, the format constraint, the no-key auth posture, and the conditional return. It does not mention failure/edge behavior for malformed input, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents the 10-digit format with concrete examples ('30032 95320' or '3003295320'). The description's mention of '10-digit' merely restates the schema, adding no new syntax or format meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a 10-digit Makani number exists.' Combined with the name makani_validate, an agent can immediately tell this is a validation/existence check rather than a lookup, which separates it from makani_details and makani_reverse_geocode. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the '(no key)' note hints this is a cheap, unauthenticated check, which a reader could contrast with a keyed detail lookup. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over makani_details or makani_reverse_geocode, and no exclusions or prerequisites are spelled out.

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