iso20022oracle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions the check and input format, omitting what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, report, error), whether it is side-effect-free, or any limitations. This is a notable gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 at two sentences and front-loads the purpose. However, the second sentence duplicates schema details, which slightly reduces its value, but overall it is concise and scannable.

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?

This is a check tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what happens on success/failure. It doesn't mention return values, error behavior, or whether results are synchronous, leaving the agent without critical outcome expectations.

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%, with the schema already describing the address object fields and free-text fallback. The description repeats the field list but omits the CtrySubDvsn field and free-text option, so it adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the tool checks postal address data against SWIFT/SEPA/CHAPS structured address requirements, with a specific verb ('check') and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling validation tools like validate_message, which likely cover broader message 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 implies use when address compliance needs verification (e.g., ahead of the Nov 2026 deadline), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on when not to use it is present.

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

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

The description discloses that the tool performs a lookup and lists output categories, which implies a read-only operation. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover edge cases like unsupported symbols, case sensitivity, or any external dependencies, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 composed of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the action and scope, while the second lists the return fields. Every word earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 lookup tool, this description is adequately complete: it defines the input domain and the expected output categories. It does not discuss error handling or limitations, but given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, these are not critical omissions.

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 description already covers 100% of the single parameter 'symbol' with explicit examples (USDC, USDT, EURC, etc.). The tool description itself does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the verb 'Look up' and the resource 'Digital Token Identifier (ISO 24165/DTI)' for stablecoins and crypto assets. It also enumerates specific return fields (DTI code, ISIN mapping, networks, MiCA status, ISO 20022 reference), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mica_cross_check or stablecoin_iso_profile.

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?

Usage is implied through the purpose: use when you need DTI codes or related information for a stablecoin. No explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as stablecoin_iso_profile or mica_cross_check, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states that it generates a skeleton and can optionally include a stablecoin reference. It does not indicate whether validation occurs, what output is produced, or any side effects.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the optional feature. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is minimal. It fails to specify output format, parameter constraints, or the meaning of DTI, leaving the agent without sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 only 25%, and the description fails to explain the majority of parameters. It only provides context for stablecoin, leaving amount, currency, debtor/creditor BICs, and names semantically unclear.

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 states the tool generates a pacs.008 (FI to FI Customer Credit Transfer) ISO 20022 XML message skeleton, which is a specific verb+resource. It also mentions the optional stablecoin settlement reference, distinguishing it from validation/checking sibling 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?

The description provides no explicit or contextual guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_message or message_catalog. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or when to include the stablecoin reference.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it merely says 'health and status check' without elaborating on what is checked, what output is expected, or whether any side effects occur. Minimal transparency.

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?

Single sentence, appropriately sized, and straight to the point. No filler or redundant information earns a perfect score.

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?

Given the simple nature of a health check (no params), the description is minimally viable but incomplete: it doesn't specify what the status output includes or what constitutes a healthy state. Without an output schema, this leaves some ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema confirms that (100% coverage). Per the rules, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 explicitly names the resource (ISO20022Oracle) and the action (health and status check), making it clear and distinguishing it from sibling tools like dti_lookup or generate_pacs008. The verb 'check' combined with the specific resource gives a precise scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any basis for selecting it over other sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool 'list all' relevant message types and includes 'required fields and stablecoin-specific extensions', which is transparent about the primary behavior. However, it does not disclose response format or any limitations, but for a read-only list tool the main behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 a single, tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the action verb 'List' and immediately specifies the scope and content. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides enough context to understand its purpose and content. It defines the scope (stablecoin/crypto payments) and the included details (required fields, extensions). The only missing context is the domain filter, but that is covered by the input schema.

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 has one optional parameter 'domain' with a complete description, providing 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the domain filter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'ISO 20022 message types relevant to stablecoin/crypto payments' and specifies the content ('required fields and stablecoin-specific extensions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_pacs008 or validate_message, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage for stablecoin/crypto payment scenarios, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. It provides a general context but no clear guidance on selecting this tool versus others.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only check via 'Check' and 'Returns,' but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or failure modes. It does add value by naming the returned information categories.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, no extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description adequately explains purpose and return values. It could explicitly mention accepted MT examples or that it only handles migration-relevant types, but the description stands alone reasonably well.

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% because the only parameter mt_type has a clear description with examples. The tool description adds no new parameter details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool checks MT→MX migration status for a SWIFT message type and lists specific outputs (ISO 20022 equivalent, complexity, deadlines, stablecoin advantages), distinguishing it from siblings like message_catalog or swift_deadlines.

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 implies a use case—checking migration status for a given MT type—but provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among siblings. It leaves the agent to infer applicability.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the output behavior (returns PASS/WARN/BLOCK verdict with reasoning), which implies a read-only analysis. However, it does not mention whether external lookups occur, how unknown symbols are handled, or any limitations, so it is minimally acceptable but not rich.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and clearly states the output format. Every word adds value, with no redundant information.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it explains the purpose, the regulatory context, and the output type. It could be enhanced by specifying the structure of the reasoning or any prerequisites, but the core context is sufficient for a simple check tool.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'symbol' parameter, describing it as 'Stablecoin symbol to check'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as accepted formats or examples. Baseline 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 states the tool's function: checking whether a stablecoin can be legally used in EU ISO 20022 payment flows after MiCA enforcement. It uses a specific verb ('Cross-check') and resource ('stablecoin legality'), and the return format (PASS/WARN/BLOCK with reasoning) distinguishes it from sibling tools like stablecoin_iso_profile.

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 context for use is implied: it is for assessing legal usability of a stablecoin in EU ISO 20022 payments after MiCA. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stablecoin_iso_profile or sanctions_screen_iso, nor any exclusion criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds that the tool references EU, OFAC, and UN lists and cross-references FeedOracle AMLOracle, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, returns a decision, performs external calls beyond the reference, or any side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences; the first is front-loaded with the primary action and object. The second adds a useful external-system reference without wasting space.

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?

In the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete: it does not describe the result format, success/failure semantics, or whether all parameters are optional, despite the tool's compliance-oriented purpose.

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?

Only 33% of parameters have schema descriptions (country). The description provides the semantic context 'originator/beneficiary data' but does not map bic/name/country to their screening roles or explain how they should be formatted, so it fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Screen') and resource ('originator/beneficiary data from ISO 20022 messages') against EU/OFAC/UN sanctions lists. It clearly communicates the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like travel_rule_check or mica_cross_check.

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 context is clear: use for sanctions screening of ISO 20022 originator/beneficiary data. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the data returned, but does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, whether it makes external calls (e.g., for live peg data), or any potential limitations. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists the key data areas. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 description gives a solid sense of the tool's scope by enumerating multiple data categories (DTI, message references, MiCA status, XRPL details, live peg data), which is valuable without an output schema. However, it lacks detail on response structure, error handling, or timing, leaving a slight gap.

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 covers the parameter fully with a description of the symbol field and allowed values (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantic guidance about the parameter beyond what is in the schema.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete ISO 20022 integration profile for a stablecoin'). It enumerates specific data components (DTI, message references, settlement networks, etc.), which distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like dti_lookup or mica_cross_check.

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 establishes clear context for using the tool when a comprehensive profile is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The phrase 'complete profile' implies differentiation from single-aspect tools, but without explicit guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns urgency levels, days remaining, and recommendations and covers specific compliance areas, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, whether any authentication is needed, or how the data is sourced, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, well-structured sentence plus a short follow-up listing covered topics. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the zero-parameter, no-output-schema context, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (deadlines with urgency, days remaining, recommendations) and its scope. It doesn't specify the exact data structure or any pagination, but for a simple lookup tool, this is sufficient.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers all parameter information (none). The description adds value by explaining the returned data, and per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'SWIFT/ISO 20022 compliance deadlines' and enriches it with urgency levels, days remaining, and recommendations, making its purpose unmistakable. It also lists covered topics (MT retirement, structured addresses, MiCA enforcement), which differentiates it from sibling tools like mica_cross_check or check_structured_address that focus on specific areas.

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 clearly implies it's the tool for retrieving compliance deadlines, listing relevant topics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it for deadline queries, though it lacks the explicit alternative guidance seen in top-tier examples.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It says 'validates' which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what happens on failure, return format, required permissions, or other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a compliance tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and zero filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description needed to explain what the check returns, what inputs are required beyond amount, and how results are interpreted. It only states the high-level validation purpose, leaving too much unspecified for a 4-parameter tool with nested objects.

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 covers originator and beneficiary descriptions but leaves amount and currency undocumented. The description adds context by tying these entities to Travel Rule requirements, but it does not explain the role of amount or currency, so it only partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check FATF Travel Rule compliance for a payment.' It also clarifies the validation against ISO 20022 field mappings, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sanctions_screen_iso and mica_cross_check.

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 implies use for travel rule compliance checks, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, such as sanctions or MICA checks, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'validate' by specifying what validation covers (schema compliance, required fields, Nov 2026 deadline) and describes two distinct behaviors depending on which parameter is provided. It does not mention side effects or return format, but it is a read-only validation tool.

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 two sentences, starts with the primary action and resource, and is front-loaded with the core purpose. It provides valuable detail without fluff, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 description covers the main functionality and parameters, which is adequate for a simple validation tool. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail, error list, schema details). This is a clear gap, as the user would not know what to expect from the output.

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 describes both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds the relationship between the parameters: 'xml' is for full validation and 'message_type' is for schema info, clarifying that they serve different purposes. This adds operational meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the tool validates ISO 20022 XML messages with specific validation criteria (schema compliance, required fields, deadline). It lists common message types and distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_pacs008 or message_convert_check by focusing on 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 gives clear usage context: use when you need to validate an ISO 20022 XML message. It also explains the two parameter modes ('xml' for full validation, 'message_type' for schema info), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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