validate_orcid

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

Describes the algorithm (ISO 7064 MOD 11-2), mentions acceptance of bare ID or URL, and notes the check digit may be 'X'. With no annotations, it provides good behavioral context beyond the schema, though return value is not specified.

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 'USE THIS', no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides unique 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, input format, and validation logic. It could mention the return type, but overall it 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 already has a good description for 'orcid' (100% coverage), but the description adds value by specifying acceptance of both bare ID and URL and detailing the check digit logic.

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?

Clearly states it verifies an ORCID researcher identifier and checks the ISO 7064 MOD 11-2 check digit. It is specific and distinct from sibling validation tools, which cover different identifiers.

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 an ORCID researcher identifier instead of trusting 16 digits', providing clear context for use. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined.

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