validate.bic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool only validates structure and does not perform directory lookups, which is key behavioral info. It also notes the country check against ISO 3166.

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 two sentences (25 words), front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary information. It efficiently conveys all needed context.

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?

While the description covers purpose and behavior, it lacks detail on the return format beyond 'parsed parts.' No output schema is provided, so the agent may need more specifics on what exactly is returned. Given the simplicity, it is minimally complete but could improve.

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 100% schema coverage and only one parameter, the description adds meaning by detailing the BIC format (8 or 11 chars), the components, and the ISO 3166 country check, going beyond the schema's minimal 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?

The description clearly states it validates a SWIFT/BIC code, explains the format (8 or 11 chars), lists the components, and distinguishes it from a directory lookup. It is specific and unique among siblings.

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 tells what the tool does and clarifies it is structure-only, not a directory lookup, providing implicit guidance on when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives among sibling validation tools.

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