validate_fssai

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

The description discloses that spaces/hyphens are stripped, what the 14-digit format encodes, and that the return values include validation, state, license type, and year. This adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations, which already indicate a read-only, idempotent operation.

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 compact and organized with clear sections (Usage, Args, Returns, Notes). Each section contributes useful context, though the Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema. Overall it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

The tool takes a single parameter, the safety profile is captured by annotations, and the decode logic and output fields are described. With an output schema already present, there are no significant gaps left unanswered.

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 already covers the parameter at 100% with details about the 14-digit format and spaces/hyphens allowed. The description's Args section largely restates the same information, so it adds no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's specific verb 'Validate' and resource 'FSSAI (Food Safety) license number format', and additionally says it 'decodes details.' This differentiates it from sibling validation tools by naming the exact license type and domain.

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?

'Use when verifying food business operator licenses in compliance checks' explicitly identifies the triggering context. It doesn't mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but for a single-purpose validator that context is sufficient.

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