enrich_legal_v1_enrich_legal_post

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 mentions 'algorithmic validation' (suggesting non-LLM, deterministic operation) and a cost per request, which are useful. However, it does not describe what happens on success/failure, the output format, whether both iban and tax_id are mutually exclusive or if at least one is required, or any side effects. For an unannotated tool, this is a significant gap.

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 compact, with two sentences covering the core function and a cost note. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids unnecessary prose. The phrase 'Detects bank codes and country origins' is slightly vague but adds functional context without bloat. Overall, it is efficiently written for its length.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (3 optional params, no output schema), but the description omits essential details: it does not state what the response looks like, whether at least one of iban/tax_id is required, or how the country parameter affects validation. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent may struggle to handle the result or know preconditions. The lack of explanation about the return value or error cases makes it incomplete for a validation endpoint.

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 already describes all three parameters (iban, tax_id, country) with clear titles, examples, and descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify parameter relationships (e.g., whether iban and tax_id are independent or require at least one).

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 it 'Performs algorithmic validation for Tax Identification Numbers and IBANs' with specific resources (TINs, IBANs) and a specific verb ('validates'). It also mentions detecting bank codes and country origins, which are concrete sub-capabilities. This distinguishes it from other enrichment tools like enrich_date or enrich_amount, which target different data types.

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 does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when to use it. However, the purpose is clearly scoped to TIN/IBAN validation, so an agent can reasonably infer that this is the tool for those entities given the sibling set of enrichment tools. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'not for...' guidance, leaving some inference required.

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