validate_edi

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the output format (validation summary with valid flag, errors, transaction set, control number, segment count) and explicitly stating 'Read-only or local operation', which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds useful context about what is not returned (full parsed JSON), enhancing behavioral transparency beyond structured hints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then providing concise details about the return value. Every sentence contributes necessary information without any filler, making it appropriately sized and structured.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description is complete: it states the action, the input, and the output summary fields, while annotations cover safety characteristics (read-only). Since there is no output schema, disclosing the return summary list is essential and adequately covered. It lacks nothing for an agent to understand what this tool does and what to expect.

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?

With only one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the 'content' parameter as 'The full raw EDI document text to validate.' The description repeats this concept without adding new details like format constraints, size limits, or encoding, so it adds no extra semantic value beyond the structured field.

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 tool validates a raw EDI interchange against X12 structural rules, specifying the verb (validate), resource (EDI interchange), and rule set (X12 structural). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like parse_edi or validate_x12_structure, as it focuses on validation and returns a summary rather than the full parsed JSON.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_x12_structure or parse_edi. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or competitor tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool purpose alone.

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