validate_tckn

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

No annotations provided; description fully discloses validation scope (structure only, not registration) and parameter handling (spaces ignored). No hidden behaviors.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded imperative ('USE THIS'), all words essential. No 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 single-parameter validator with no output schema or annotations, description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter. Nothing missing.

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?

Single parameter 'tckn' with schema description 'The 11-digit TCKN (spaces ignored).' Description adds 'spaces ignored' beyond schema, clarifying input flexibility.

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 clearly states the tool validates TCKN, specifies checks (algorithmic check digits, leading-digit rule), and explicitly states what it does NOT confirm (registration). Distinguishes from siblings as a structural validator.

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?

Advised to use before relying on TCKN, with warning not to assume validity. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context among sibling validators makes usage clear.

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