validate_uid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose that the check is performed against an external UID Webservice and the official register, which is meaningful context. However it does not say what the response distinguishes (exists vs. doesn't exist), whether the call is network-dependent, or any error/rate-limit behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the second sentence adding the lookup target. Nothing is wasted, though it is thin rather than maximally informative.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source for return semantics; it hints at a yes/no existence check but never states the result shape or failure modes. For a single well-specified parameter this is adequate but leaves a real gap around what the caller gets back.

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% and the single uid parameter is fully documented with its CHE-XXX.XXX.XXX pattern, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format or normalization detail beyond it, matching the baseline 3.

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 (validate) and resource (Swiss UID) and adds the mechanism (UID Webservice) plus the effect (checks existence in the official register). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_company_by_uid or validate_vat_number, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 implies the tool is for validating/verifying a UID but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions versus siblings such as validate_vat_number or get_company_by_uid. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely.

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