thai_validate_id

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which are consistent. Description adds that it uses an official checksum and returns a JSON with 'valid' and 'formatted' fields, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 long, front-loaded with purpose and return type. No wasted text. Perfectly concise.

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 parameter and a return object, the description covers the validation method (checksum) and return fields. Annotations provide safety info. Output schema not provided but inline description covers it. Nearly 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?

Schema description for id_number parameter is clear ('Spaces/dashes are ignored'). Tool description does not add extra information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. With 0% schema_description_coverage (description doesn't mention params), the schema already covers the parameter well.

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?

Description clearly states it validates a 13-digit Thai national ID or tax ID using the official checksum. The verb 'validate' and specific resource distinguish it from sibling tools like thai_format_phone or thai_lookup_province.

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?

Implies usage when validating a Thai national/tax ID, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools are different operations, so ambiguity is low, but lack of exclusions reduces score.

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