Generate EDIFACT ORDERS

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions automatic computation of envelopes, escaping, and counters, and asserts zero-issue round-tripping. It does not address authentication, rate limits, or potential failure modes, leaving some gaps.

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 that front-load the core purpose and key behavioral traits. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description provides essential context about the output (EDIFACT interchange, round-trip quality) but omits details like return type format, error handling, or performance characteristics.

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 100%, with each parameter documented. The tool description adds value by mapping parameters to EDIFACT segments (e.g., NAD+BY, DTM+137) and summarizing the structure, which goes beyond the raw 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 generates a syntactically valid EDIFACT ORDERS D.96A interchange from a simple JSON order description. It specifies the resource (EDIFACT ORDERS D.96A format) and the action (generate), distinguishing it from siblings like parse_edifact, which parse EDIFACT.

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 when you have a JSON order description and need EDIFACT output, and mentions round-trip compatibility with parse_edifact. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, nor provides when-not-to-use guidance.

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