Generate 997 Functional Acknowledgment

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

Given no annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: sender/receiver swapping, one AK2/AK5 pair per transaction, and ack status based on envelope validation (clean → A, errors → R). This is beyond a basic description, but could also mention output format 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?

Two sentences with no extraneous words. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by a clarifying detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers the essential aspects: purpose, swapping, transaction structure, and status logic. Lacks explicit mention of output format (likely the 997 string), but context is sufficient for a tool with no output schema.

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 100% schema coverage, the description does not add value beyond the schema. The 'content' parameter is implied to be the incoming interchange, and 'ack_control_number' default is mentioned in schema. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 builds an X12 997 Functional Acknowledgment from an interchange, specifying sender/receiver swapping and AK2/AK5 pairs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate_edi, though the distinct purpose is evident.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when validation is needed or when parsing alone suffices. The description implies usage after receiving an interchange but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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