parse_segments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by stating 'Read-only or local operation' and mentions that it produces a validation summary, giving insight into side effects and output behavior beyond the safety flags. This is consistent with annotations.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the essential purpose, and avoids unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to clarifying functionality and safety.

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 single-parameter parse tool with clear annotations and sibling references, the description is sufficient. It explains the core operation, output, and safety profile. Minor gaps like the exact structure of the validation summary exist, but they are not critical for tool invocation.

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 documents the only parameter 'content' with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. The phrase 'raw X12' in the description aligns with the schema's 'Full raw EDI document text', but no additional meaning is provided beyond the schema. 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 clearly states a specific verb ('parse') and resource ('raw X12'), and specifies the output ('structured JSON plus validation summary'). It also distinguishes from siblings by identifying itself as an alias for parse_edi, making its function unambiguous.

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 by saying it is an alias for parse_edi, so the agent can infer it should be used when parsing EDI content. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like validate_edi or explain when this alias is preferred over the original, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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