validate.lei

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it validates check digits and returns normalized LEI and LOU prefix, which is transparent for a simple validation tool. No additional behavioral traits are omitted.

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?

Three sentences front-loaded with the action and algorithm, followed by output and use case. No unnecessary information, each sentence earns its place.

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 the simple input schema (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully explains the tool's purpose, behavior, and context. No gaps remain.

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 covers 100% of parameters (one 'lei' string). The description adds value by explaining the validation algorithm (ISO 7064 mod-97-10) and the output fields, which go beyond the schema's parameter 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 Legal Entity Identifier using ISO 7064 check digits, returns normalized LEI and LOU prefix, and distinguishes it from other validate tools by specifying the identifier type and algorithm.

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 mentions confirming a counterparty/vendor LEI before GLEIF lookup, providing context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly for other identifiers, so the usage is sufficiently clear.

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