Validate EDI message

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: detects standard, verifies structure, returns actionable errors/warnings with details. Does not mention auth, rate limits, or destructive actions, but these are not expected for a read-only validation tool.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, efficiently conveys purpose, process, and output.

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 no output schema, description sufficiently explains return structure (list of errors/warnings with segment, position, expected/found, plus summary). Complexity of validating multiple standards is addressed. Sibling tools are only parsers/generators, so no missing overlap.

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% with one parameter described as 'Raw EDI content'. Description adds context of what the tool does but does not expand on parameter format, encoding, or size limits. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool detects EDI standard (EDIFACT, X12, cXML), verifies envelope structure, mandatory segments, and control counters. Differentiates from sibling parsing tools by being a general validator.

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?

Description implies validation use case but lacks explicit when-to-use versus siblings like parse_edifact, parse_x12, or explain_segment. No exclusions or alternative guidance.

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