validate_epf_code

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

The description adds no real behavioral context beyond the 'PermissionTier: READ_ONLY' comment, which simply restates the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not disclose whether validation checks format, existence, registration status, or whether it makes network requests, leaving the agent uninformed about practical behavior.

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 main description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Validate EPF establishment code.' This is concise and does not waste words. The PermissionTier tag is redundant with annotations, but the overall length is appropriate and the key purpose appears first.

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?

With one parameter, read-only and idempotent annotations, and an output schema, the essential calling contract is covered. However, the description does not clarify what 'validate' means beyond the format hint in the schema—specifically, whether it checks only format or also verifies the code against an authoritative source—so an agent might make incorrect assumptions about the result.

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 input schema already provides the full description for the only parameter, including the expected format (XX/XXXXX/XXXXXX/XXX). The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, so an agent relies entirely on the schema to understand the argument.

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 'Validate EPF establishment code' uses a specific verb and resource, effectively conveying the tool's single responsibility. The EPF code type is distinct from sibling validators like validate_tan or validate_gstin, though the description does not elaborate on the scope or manner of validation.

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 only implies usage: it is used when one needs to validate an EPF establishment code. It provides no explicit context about when to choose this tool over other validators, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools or preconditions.

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