validate_china_ric

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool validates structure (18-character form) and the ISO 7064 MOD 11-2 check character, including that 'X' is allowed. It explicitly notes it does NOT confirm registration. This provides sufficient transparency for a validation tool, though it omits details like rate limiting or side effects (which are unlikely given read-only nature).

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence is an imperative usage instruction ('USE THIS to verify...'), immediately conveying purpose. The second explains the validation algorithm, and the third clarifies limitations. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most critical guidance.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does (structure and check digit validation), what it doesn't do (registration check), and the specific format expected. An agent can confidently decide to use this tool without needing additional context.

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 the parameter well (100% coverage), but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the check character algorithm (ISO 7064 MOD 11-2) and warns against guessing it. This enriches the agent's understanding of what validation occurs, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the tool as validating a Chinese Resident Identity Card number (居民身份证). It specifies the action ('verify'), the resource ('Chinese Resident Identity Card number'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., validate_aadhaar for India) by naming the country-specific document. The description also states what it does not do (confirm registration), further clarifying 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 begins with 'USE THIS to verify ... before relying on it', providing explicit context for when the tool should be invoked. It advises against guessing the check character, reinforcing proper use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions where this tool should not be used, though the sibling list implicitly offers other validation tools for different countries.

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