Validate CERIF 1.6 XML

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: validation against an official schema, in-process execution, and the specific error types and locations returned. It does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or mention side effects, but for a validation tool, the read-only nature is strongly implied and the description adds meaningful 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?

The description is two sentences that are dense with actionable information: purpose, schema reference, output details, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 the single parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what the tool does, the schema, the return format (error types and locations), and even the intended iterative usage. There are no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema already covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds value by clarifying that the input is an 'XML string' (emphasizing inline content, not a file path) and by naming the exact schema version used, which helps the agent understand what format is expected.

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 ('Validates'), a specific resource ('CERIF 1.6 XML string'), and the target schema ('euroCRIS CERIF_1.6_2.xsd'). This distinguishes it from the sibling `validate_file` (which likely operates on files, not inline strings) and other 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?

It explicitly advises using `validate_xml` iteratively during failures and suggests `build_*` tools as an alternative for constructing valid fragments. This provides clear usage context, but it does not explicitly contrast with `validate_file`, so it stops short of full exclusions or alternative discrimination.

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