validate_ern_xml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that validation has two modes and that the XSD check is 'offline', but it says nothing about failure behavior, permissions, cost, or what a result contains. Partial disclosure, but significant gaps remain for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb+resource first, then the mechanism, then the input hint. Zero padding, though the parenthetical is slightly dense for a one-line description.

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 validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally hint at the return shape (valid/invalid plus issues) and the relationship to the full XSD result. It names the modes but leaves the outcome contract unstated, so an agent is left guessing what it receives.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the meaning of xml, path, and smoke_only is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'and/or' hint about combining xml and path inputs, which is minor additional value over the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Validate a finished DDEX ERN 3.8.2 NewReleaseMessage'. The parenthetical clarifies the two validation layers (smoke structure/order + full offline XSD). It implicitly separates itself from validate_package_dir via 'Pass xml string and/or path', but never names that sibling explicitly.

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 word 'finished' implies the tool is meant for completed messages, and the smoke_only mention hints at a fast pre-check path before the full XSD run. However there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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