decode_digilocker_uri

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true. The description adds a permission tier note but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like what 'map to validator' means or any caveats. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a permission tier note. Every part is valuable and there is no redundancy or verbosity.

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 (1 parameter), presence of an output schema (covering return values), and thorough annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description adequately conveys the core functionality. Could briefly explain the 'map to validator' outcome but not strictly necessary.

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 single required parameter 'uri' described as 'DigiLocker document URI'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Decode') and resource ('DigiLocker document URI') and outcome ('map to validator'). This distinguishes it from sibling validation tools which validate documents rather than decoding URIs.

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 implies usage by stating the purpose but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_pan or lookup_ifsc. The permission tier note is not a usage guideline.

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