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.