parse_pain001

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

With no annotations, the description reveals that the tool returns a structured object on success or an error on failure. It mentions the message's internal batches but does not detail edge cases, validation behavior, or side effects.

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 efficient, using three sentences to convey purpose, structure context, and return type. It is front-loaded with the core action, though the middle paragraph could be slightly tighter.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the input and output. It explains the message's batch structure, which aids understanding, though error details are sparse.

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 sole parameter 'xml' is fully described in the schema. The description adds no further detail about format, size limits, or encoding, so it provides minimal value beyond the schema.

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 it parses a specific pain.001.001.09 message, providing context about its role in credit transfers. It distinguishes from sibling parsing tools (e.g., parse_pacs008) by naming the message type and describing its structure.

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 explains the message's purpose but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies usage when a pain.001 XML is encountered, but lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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