validate_hr_oib

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool performs structural validation (format and check digit) and does not perform lookup or live checks. This is transparent for a simple validation tool.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and provides essential details without redundancy.

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 or annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It could be improved by specifying the return type (e.g., boolean), but the current description is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description in the schema already states '11-digit Croatian OIB (spaces ignored).' The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verifies a Croatian OIB, specifies what it checks (11-digit form and ISO 7064 MOD 11,10 check digit), and notes it validates structure only. This distinguishes it from sibling validation tools for other IDs.

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 to use this tool before relying on a Croatian OIB, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the sibling tools cover different ID types, making the usage implicit.

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