validate_aadhaar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict these. It adds useful behavioral detail: spaces and hyphens are stripped, the validation is limited to format and Verhoeff checksum, and the return envelope includes validity, checksum result, formatted display, and first-digit check. The UIDAI caveat is especially helpful for avoiding expectations beyond the local validation.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and organized into Purpose, Use-when, Args, Returns, and Notes. It includes the critical caveat about UIDAI without any filler, and every line contributes actionable information for an agent.

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 single-parameter validation tool with 100% schema coverage, output schema present, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool validates, when to use it, how the input is normalized, what the return envelope contains, and the important limitation that it is not connected to UIDAI. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description's Args section mostly restates that aadhaar is a 12-digit number and that spaces and hyphens are allowed. It adds that spaces and hyphens are 'stripped' prior to validation, which is slight extra operational detail, but not a substantial semantic addition.

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 identifies the verb ('Validate') and resource ('an Indian Aadhaar number'), and the phrase 'Verhoeff checksum verification' makes its function specific. It also states that it is format/checksum-only and 'not connected to UIDAI', which distinguishes it from identity-lookup style tools. It does not explicitly contrast it with bulk_validate_aadhaar or other related sibling validators, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit usage context: 'Use when checking Aadhaar format and checksum in KYC, identity verification, or government benefit workflows.' It also provides a meaningful limitation with 'Not connected to UIDAI', which warns agents not to use it for live UIDAI verification. It stops short of naming alternatives such as bulk_validate_aadhaar, so it is not a perfect routing guide.

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