validate_driving_license

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

Given the annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: it states the tool is format-validation-only and that non-standard pre-Sarathi formats are handled gracefully. It also discloses auto-stripping of hyphens/spaces. These are not redundant 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 logically organized into Args/Returns/Notes, and is not overly long. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema, but each other part earns its place. Minor redundancy is not enough to warrant a stronger penalty.

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?

With a complete output schema and useful annotations, the description still contributes important context: what the tool does not do (format validation only), and graceful handling of old formats. This places it above the threshold for a simple tool description, though it could add edge-case behavior or explicit error handling notes.

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 schema already covers the parameter fully (description, type, min/max). The description's Args section adds little semantic value, only repeating the field. However, it does clarify that hyphens/spaces are stripped automatically, which is a small extension beyond the schema text. Baseline of 3 is appropriate overall.

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 states a specific verb ('Validate') and a clear resource ('Indian driving license number') and explicitly says it decodes segments. The scope is narrowed with examples (state/RTO/year), and it is easily distinguished from sibling validators like validate_aadhaar or decode_state_code. The sentence is specific and usable.

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 'Use when' line provides concrete usage context ('verifying DL format, extracting state/RTO/year in KYC workflows') which is above-average guidance. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools that should be used instead in related cases (e.g., decode_state_code), so it lacks full alternative exclusions.

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