validate_ee_isikukood

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 states that the tool 'validates structure only', which clarifies it does not check person existence or validity. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, though validation tools are typically safe.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded with the usage directive 'USE THIS'. Every sentence provides essential 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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough. It explains the validation scope (structure only) and the key algorithm detail. The lack of output schema is acceptable as the return value is implied (boolean).

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 covers the parameter with 100% coverage, describing that spaces are ignored. The description adds meaning by explaining the validation algorithm (two-stage mod-11 check digit), which goes beyond the schema's type and 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 clearly states the tool validates an Estonian isikukood (personal identification code), specifying the type of code and the validation performed (11-digit form and mod-11 check digit). This distinguishes it from the many sibling validation tools for other country codes.

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 explicitly says 'USE THIS to verify an Estonian isikukood before relying on it.', which clearly indicates when to use. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but given the sibling list, each tool is for a specific code type, so it is implied.

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