ksef_validate_nip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Validate a Polish NIP checksum,' which confirms read-only behavior but provides no additional behavioral traits beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with purpose. It efficiently conveys the core action without extraneous words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

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 tool has one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is adequate but minimal. It correctly identifies the action but does not elaborate on return values or edge cases. The output schema covers return expectations, so the description is sufficient but not thorough.

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 0% for the 'nip' parameter. The description does not explain the parameter's format, length, or expected value. Despite the tool name hinting at NIP, the description fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving ambiguity for the AI agent.

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 validates a Polish NIP checksum, with a specific verb (validate) and resource (NIP checksum). It differentiates from sibling validation tools like ksef_validate_fa3_xml or ksef_validate_invoice_draft by focusing on NIP.

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 usage for validating a NIP checksum, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide context like input format or validation scope. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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