validate_fr_nir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses that the tool validates structure only (not real-world validity), handles Corsica numbers, and checks the key. It does not describe the return format, which is a minor 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with an imperative directive ('USE THIS'), no redundant information, and every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, scope, and structural checks. It could mention the return type, but given low complexity, it remains complete enough.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter description stating the format. The description adds meaning by explaining what parts of the NIR are validated and mentioning Corsica handling, which goes beyond the schema.

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 French social-security numbers, specifies what it checks (13-digit body, mod-97 key, Corsica handling), and distinguishes it from sibling validation tools by targeting a specific national ID.

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?

Explicitly says 'USE THIS to verify a French social-security number before relying on it', providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to sibling tools, but the name and description imply it's for French NIR only.

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