isw_agency_requery_xml

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it is destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response looks like. The agent gets no insight into side effects or expected outcomes.

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 sentence of 5 words, which is concise but overly terse. It lacks front-loaded key information; however, it is not verbose. The brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the tool is severely under-documented. An agent cannot reliably determine the tool's functionality, input requirements, or typical use case. It is insufficient for correct selection and 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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the single 'xml' parameter. It does not specify the expected XML structure, required elements, or format. The term 'raw' is vague, offering no concrete guidance for constructing valid input.

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 'Submit raw Agency Banking requery XML' clearly states the action (submit) and resource (Agency Banking requery XML). It distinguishes from sibling 'isw_agency_cashout_xml' by using 'requery', implying a query/retrieval operation rather than a cashout. However, it could be more specific about what 'requery' entails (e.g., checking transaction status).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'isw_requery_transfer' or 'isw_agency_cashout_xml'. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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