Explain EDI segment

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

Discloses coverage (35 EDIFACT, 28 X12 segments) and behavior for tags in both standards (returns both unless standard specified). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well, though error handling for unknown tags is not described.

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 sentences with no wasted words. Key information (purpose, coverage, examples, dual-standard handling) is efficiently presented and front-loaded.

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 explanation tool, the description covers purpose, supported segments, and standard handling. The output is described vaguely ('role, key elements, example'), but lacking a formal output schema, this is acceptable. No mention of error handling or performance.

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%, but the description adds value by listing example tags and clarifying the standard parameter's effect on ambiguous tags. This goes beyond the schema's simple type descriptions.

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 explains an EDI segment tag in plain English, covering role, key elements, and a realistic example. It specifies the exact standards (EDIFACT and X12) and provides concrete segment examples, making the purpose 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like parse_edifact or validate_message. The description implies usage for understanding individual segments but does not mention when to choose explain_segment over other tools or when not to use it.

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