validate_voter_id

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it validates format, implying no side effects, but does not elaborate on behavior beyond that. Since annotations cover the main safety signals, additional context is minimal.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides usage context. Every word is necessary; no fluff.

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 simple validation tool with one well-documented parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it.

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 fully documents the single parameter voter_id with a description and example. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra parameter information; baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool validates an Indian Voter ID (EPIC) number format, specifying the verb 'validate' and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling validation tools like validate_pan or validate_aadhaar by focusing specifically on voter ID.

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 says 'Use when verifying voter ID format in KYC, identity, or electoral workflows,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, leaving room for improvement.

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