validate_epf_code

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

The description only restates the action in the tool name ('Validate EPF establishment code') and adds no behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already provided by annotations. It does not disclose what 'valid' means, whether it performs a lookup against a registry, or what happens for invalid codes. It does not contradict the 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, front-loaded sentence of five words. Every word is necessary and there is zero redundancy or filler, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 tool with full schema coverage, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the one-sentence description is largely sufficient. The only nuance missing is whether validation checks format only or also verifies the establishment against an authoritative source, which could affect an agent's confidence in results.

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 fully covers the only parameter, `code`, including its format pattern (XX/XXXXX/XXXXXX/XXX), achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 precise resource ('EPF establishment code'), which distinguishes it from sibling validation tools like validate_esic_code and validate_voter_id. Naming 'establishment code' also disambiguates it from other EPF-related identifiers such as UAN.

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 clearly implies its use: whenever an EPF establishment code needs to be validated. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no mention of alternatives, and no distinction from the many other validate_* tools in the sibling list.

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