explain_error

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 explains the output components (readable location, HL7 table meanings, actionable hint) which gives some transparency, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has any side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key deliverables without excess words. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure is efficient for an agent to scan.

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 the essential context: it consumes a validation issue and produces a human explanation with specific elements. However, without an output schema or annotations, it does not specify the return format (e.g., string, object) or any potential error conditions, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 'issue' object with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'issue de validación' and the output components (location, table meaning, hint), but it does not explain the individual properties (severity, code, location, message) or how they relate to the transformation, leaving the parameter semantics underspecified.

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 'Convierte' (converts) and identifies the resource as 'un issue de validación' (a validation issue), clearly stating the tool's function: turning validation issues into human-readable explanations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (parse, validate, map) by focusing on explaining errors rather than processing messages.

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 when to use the tool through the phrase 'Convierte un issue de validación', suggesting it is applied after validation has produced an issue. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving usage boundaries implied rather than explicit.

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