validate_aadhaar

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 clearly states the tool validates structure only (not a lookup), mentions the checks performed, and warns about assuming validity. This adds behavioral insight beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, starts with an imperative action, and contains no redundant text. Every sentence adds critical 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?

Given the simple validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, validation method, and limitations. It could be more explicit about the return type, but the core completeness is strong.

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 has 100% coverage on the single parameter 'aadhaar'. The description adds value by noting that spaces are ignored and emphasizing the 12-digit requirement, which is not explicit in the schema description.

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 explicitly states the tool verifies format and checksum of an Indian Aadhaar number, naming specific checks (Verhoeff, leading-digit rule). It clearly distinguishes from sibling validation tools by specifying the unique resource and validation scope.

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 starts with 'USE THIS' and advises not to assume 12 digits are valid, providing clear guidance on when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (many other validators) implies differentiation.

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