validate_epf_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds '# PermissionTier: READ_ONLY,' which is largely redundant and does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or auth requirements. Since annotations are present, the description adds minimal value.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it does not provide structured information or earn its place beyond restating the tool name. It is not verbose, but the lack of detail limits its usefulness.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about validation behavior, expected inputs, or potential outcomes. It does not explain what validation entails or how to interpret 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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear format description ('XX/XXXXX/XXXXXX/XXX'). The tool description adds no further parameter-level details, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing meaning.

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 'Validate EPF establishment code,' which is a specific verb and resource, but it closely mirrors the tool name without adding further context. It distinguishes from sibling validation tools (e.g., validate_pan) by specifying EPF, but lacks elaboration on scope or format beyond what the schema provides.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling validation tools. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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