validate_pesel

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

Discloses that it checks the weighted mod-10 check digit, which is the core behavior. No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not mention error handling or return format, but for a simple validation tool, this is adequate.

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 wasted words. The first sentence is an imperative instruction, front-loading the purpose.

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 simple input (one required string) and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and a key input constraint (ignored spaces/dashes).

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 a description for 'pesel.' The description adds context: 'never assume 11 digits are valid' and notes that spaces/dashes are ignored, 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?

Description explicitly states it validates a Polish PESEL (national identification number) and checks the weighted mod-10 check digit. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by specificity to Poland and PESEL.

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?

Advises use 'before relying on it' and specifically for 'KYC/onboarding of Polish individuals.' While it doesn't list when not to use or name alternatives, the context is clear given the tool name and sibling list.

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