thai_format_phone

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

The description adds return structure (JSON with fields: input, local, e164, type, valid) beyond annotations, which do not mention output format. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second lists return fields. Efficient and clear.

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 a simple tool with one parameter and no nested objects, the description is adequate. It provides return fields, which is helpful. Could mention classification types but not necessary.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% per context, the description should compensate but does not mention the phone_number parameter at all. The schema itself provides a description, but the rubric states the burden falls on the tool description when coverage is low.

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 that the tool normalizes and classifies a Thai phone number, specifying the verb 'normalize' and the resource 'phone number'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like thai_validate_id which is for validation, not formatting.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like thai_validate_id or other phone-related utilities. The context of use is implied but not stated.

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