validate_usci

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the check is offline, arithmetic, and does not query registries, and it clarifies what a passing code does and does not establish. This is transparent and goes beyond mere schema information.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence contributes meaningfully. It avoids redundancy and clearly organizes the check logic, decoded segments, and limitations.

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 tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns conceptually (registering authority, entity category, administrative division) and what it establishes. However, it does not specify the exact return structure or field names, which could be helpful for an agent consuming the result. This is a minor gap.

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 schema description covers the code parameter well (tolerances for whitespace, full-width spaces, hyphens, lower case). The tool description adds the '18-character' length constraint and the context of a mainland China business licence, providing value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is raised to 4 due to this added context.

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 precisely states the tool's function: checking well-formedness of an 18-character USCI and decoding its segments, citing the standard (GB 32100-2015). It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling (usci_check_character) by covering full validation and decode, not just the check character. The 'does NOT query any registry' clause further clarifies scope.

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 provides clear context on when to use it (offline arithmetic validation) and explicit exclusions (does not prove existence, activity, or trustworthiness). However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool as an alternative, though the sibling's name implies it. The guidance is sufficient but not maximally explicit.

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