ISO 20022 Navigator

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: responses are sourced and current with status and caveats, retired messages are flagged via iso20022_deactivated_in rather than hidden, and compactness is traded off when `standard` is supplied.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary use case, then call strategy, then input/output semantics, then scope exclusions. Reasonably tight, though the bulleted input-type section partly restates the schema's own examples.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still names the key response fields and the retired-message flag. Safety, scope limits, and call strategy are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: omitting `standard` returns every recorded scheme at once and should not be used to check schemes one by one, while supplying it includes that scheme's description. It also contrasts legacy vs ISO 20022 inputs to explain which response keys appear.

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?

States a specific resource (ISO 20022 vs legacy payment message mappings) and the exact question types it serves, naming concrete examples (MT103, pacs.008, SEPA). There are no siblings, but the scope is still 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?

Explicitly says 'Use for ANY question' covering both directions, tells the agent to call it even when the answer seems known, and specifies call strategy (once with only the message for 'which schemes use X', omit `standard` unless a scheme is named). It also states when NOT to use it: field-level structure, elements, or rules.

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