validate_ro_cnp

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it checks a weighted mod-11 check digit and validates structure only. It does not hide any limitations. There is no contradiction with annotations as none exist.

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, immediately stating the purpose and the key algorithm. It is front-loaded with an imperative tone ('USE THIS'), and every word serves a purpose. No unnecessary 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?

For a simple validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and its limitation. It is mostly complete, though it omits what the tool returns (e.g., boolean or validation result). Given the simplicity, the gap is minor.

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 only parameter 'cnp' is fully described in the schema (13-digit Romanian CNP, spaces ignored). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: to verify a Romanian CNP by checking its weighted mod-11 check digit. It distinguishes from sibling validation tools by explicitly naming the algorithm and stating 'validates structure only.' The directive 'USE THIS ... before relying on it' reinforces its specific role.

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 states when to use ('before relying on a CNP') and implies limitations ('validates structure only'), guiding the agent away from using it for identity verification. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, though the sibling tool names provide context.

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