validate_pran

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is supplied by the metadata. The description adds only the scope (NPS) and return hint, without extra behavioral details such as error handling or constraints, which is adequate for this low-risk read-only 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: an opening definition, a usage directive, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place and the key purpose is 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?

With a single typed parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotency, the detection covers the essentials: what it does, when to use it, what goes in, and what comes back. It doesn't explore edge cases like value eligibility or invalid formats, but given the low complexity and metadata available, and it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'pran' is fully described as a '12-digit PRAN' in both the schema and the description's Args section. The description adds no further parameter semantics, which is fine since the schema fully documents it.

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 is explicit: it names the resource (PRAN), the action (validate), and the domain (NPS). It also spells out the intended use ('Use when verifying NPS account numbers'), which differentiates it from dozens of sibling validation tools.

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?

It clearly states when to use: 'Use when verifying NPS account numbers.' It does not name alternatives to exclude, but the NPS-scoped instruction is strong enough for an agent to select this tool over the many generic validate_* siblings.

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