validate_passport

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

Building on the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description explains that spaces and hyphens are automatically stripped, the response is a standard envelope with validity, series letter, and serial number, and there is no checksum so this is syntactic validation only. These are non-obvious behavioral details that materially change how an agent should interpret the result.

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 Use when, Args, Returns, and Notes sections structure the description well, and the most important selection logic is front-loaded. The text is compact and readable. There is slight redundancy in saying 'format validation' both in the opening and in Notes, but that does not harm overall quality.

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 a full output schema and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers all the essential context: when to use it, input handling, returned fields, and limitations. The only substantive reliability problem is the incorrect digit count mentioned in the Args section. Correcting that would make this description very complete.

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?

Since the schema already covers the parameter fully, the baseline is 3. However, the description claims '1 letter + 8 digits', which contradicts the schema's '8-char' format and the example 'A1234567' (which has 7 digits). This is a factual error that could mislead an AI agent. The useful note about stripping spaces and hyphens cannot compensate for teaching the wrong pattern.

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 begins with 'Validate an Indian passport number format', identifying the specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling validators for PAN, Aadhaar, GSTIN, and similar formats. The KYC, travel, and identity workflow context adds further clarity about the tool's intended purpose.

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 phrase 'Use when verifying passport format in KYC, travel, or identity workflows' explicitly states the intended usage context. The notes about format-only validation and the absence of a checksum algorithm clarify limits, but the description does not mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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