validate_hl7_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the validation scope (5 specific check types) and the '[Premium]' prefix signals potential access restrictions. However, it lacks explicit statements about whether the operation is read-only or what happens on validation failure (error throwing vs. error reporting).

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 efficiently structured with the '[Premium]' tag front-loaded, followed by a clear purpose statement and a specific enumeration of validation behaviors. Every sentence contributes essential information 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 absence of an output schema, the description should ideally specify the return format (e.g., error list, boolean, validated object) for a validation tool. While the validation scope is well-defined, the lack of output specification leaves a significant gap for agent invocation handling.

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 100% coverage with a clear description ('Raw HL7 v2.x message string to validate'). The tool description references the message but does not add semantic meaning, format constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 states the specific action ('Validate') and resource ('HL7 v2.x message') clearly. The phrase 'against the standard' and the detailed list of validation checks (required fields, data types, etc.) effectively distinguish this tool from the sibling 'parse_hl7_message', which likely only extracts structure without compliance checking.

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?

While the description implies usage through the detailed validation criteria (use when you need standard compliance checking), it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'parse_hl7_message' or other siblings. There are no stated prerequisites or conditions for when this tool is inappropriate.

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