lookup_business_trn

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 a key behavioral trait by explicitly stating the tool does not call the live FTA register, and it enumerates exactly what validation is performed. It does not mention return value or error behavior, but this is a read-only validation tool with no apparent side effects.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The key validation scope is front-loaded, and the important limitation about not calling the live FTA register is placed second. Every sentence adds useful 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 single-parameter validation tool withe no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough to select and invoke it correctly: input type, validation checks, and the offline limitation. A brief note on return shape would be nice, but the absence is minor given the simplicity.

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 schema already covers the parameter at 100% and documents that spaces/dashes are allowed. The description adds further meaning by clarifying accepted ID types (15-digit TRN or 10-digit TIN) and the validation logic applied to the value, including the derived Peppol participant ID.

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 ('Validate'), a precise resource ('UAE Tax Registration Number (15-digit TRN) or Tax Identification Number (10-digit TIN)'), and enumerates the checks performed: format, UAE prefix, Peppol AE:TIN check digit, and derived participant ID. It also clearly distinguishes itself from live FTA lookups and from the invoice/XML-focused sibling tools.

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 gives clear context: use this to validate TRN/TIN format and derived identifiers offline. It includes an explicit when-not signal ('Does not call the live FTA register'), though it does not name an alternative tool for live verification.

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