parse_edi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'plus a validation summary' and 'local operation', which hint at output and side-effect behavior, but it does not describe error handling, output format details, or limitations. This adds some value but remains thin.

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 the core action and output, and no wasted words. The input requirement and safety note are efficiently included.

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 tool with one parameter, existing annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the input requirement and states that output is structured JSON plus a validation summary. It could detail what the validation summary contains, but the description is otherwise sufficient for a low-complexity parser.

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% for the single parameter 'content', which already describes the raw EDI document text. The description repeats this with 'Pass the full raw EDI text including the ISA/GS envelope', adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema's own description.

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 verb 'Parse' and the resource 'raw X12 EDI interchange', with examples of document types. It implies a full-document scope via 'including the ISA/GS envelope', which somewhat distinguishes it from sibling tools like parse_segments, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 gives a usage instruction ('Pass the full raw EDI text') but offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like validate_edi or parse_segments. There is no explicit 'use this when' or exclusion criteria.

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