Build a complete CERIF 1.6 document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key output aspects (namespace, date, sourceDatabase) and instructs validation, but does not disclose the return format (e.g., XML string vs. file), error behavior on invalid fragments, or any side effects. This is a moderate level of transparency given the tool's complexity.

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 main action and specific details. The first sentence delivers the purpose and key attributes, while the second gives a critical usage instruction. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return value and edge cases. It covers the main workflow and mentions validation, but does not specify what the tool returns (presumably an XML string) or what happens on invalid input. For a moderately complex tool with five parameters, this is a noticeable gap, but the core usage is still clear.

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%, providing a solid baseline. The description adds further meaning by explicitly linking the 'blocks' parameter to fragments from build_entity/build_link and highlighting the role of 'date' and 'sourceDatabase' in the document. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, enriching parameter understanding.

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's function with a specific verb ('Wraps') and resource ('entity/link fragments from build_entity / build_link') and the final output ('a complete CERIF 1.6 XML document'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the fragment builders and the validation step, making its role in the workflow explicit.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: after building entity/link fragments with build_entity/build_link. It also instructs to always validate the result with validate_xml, offering a specific follow-up step. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the workflow is well implied.

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