validate_voter_id

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: it performs 'format validation only', strips spaces/hyphens, detects possible legacy EPIC formats, and returns a standard envelope. This gives agents a good mental model of what the tool will and will not do.

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 well-organized into use case, arguments, returns, and notes. It is compact, front-loaded, and every line adds relevant information with 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 single-parameter, read-only validation tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool validates, when to use it, what the input should look like, what the response contains, and that DB-level verification is not performed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful parameter semantics: 'EPIC number (3 letters + 7 digits)' and 'Spaces/hyphens stripped.' This clarifies acceptable input beyond the schema's simple '10-character EPIC number' description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Validate an Indian Voter ID (EPIC) number format.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling validators like validate_aadhaar or validate_pan because the target document type is explicit.

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 gives an explicit use context: 'Use when verifying voter ID format in KYC, identity, or electoral workflows.' It does not explicitly name which sibling tools to use instead, but the context is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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