explain_edi_error

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it never calls the network and operates in demo mode—information not present in annotations. It also states the output contents (meaning, typical cause, fix, lookup_x12 cross-refs), which is useful behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with purpose and containing no redundant filler. The description efficiently includes purpose, data source, output contents, and network/read-only behavior.

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 read-only explainer tool, the description covers output contents (meaning, cause, fix, cross-refs), offline mode, and no network usage, which is sufficient given the annotations cover safety. It lacks an explicit return type but that is not critical for an explanation tool.

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 clear descriptions for code, segment, and rawError, so the description need not detail parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, thus 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('EDI validation or functional-ack error') and clarifies the data source ('local X12 dictionary'), distinguishing it from validation/lookup siblings. The mention of lookup_x12 cross-refs further differentiates it from simple lookup tools.

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 for explaining errors from validate_edi or 997/999 via the rawError parameter, but doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. It does provide clear context for when to use it (error explanation) and notes it works in demo mode without network calls, which may guide usage.

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