Summarize EDI in plain language

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses how different transaction types are handled (detailed vs. segment inventory). However, it omits the output format (e.g., plain text vs. structured), error handling, or any side effects. The absence of output schema further limits transparency.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds detailed behavior for specific types. It is front-loaded and concise.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should explain return values. It mentions 'human-readable business summary' and 'segment inventory' but does not specify format, clarity, or handling of invalid inputs. This lack of detail limits completeness for an agent to fully understand the tool's outputs.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'content', describing it as raw EDI document text. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 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 the tool produces a human-readable business summary of an EDI document, listing specific supported types (X12 850/810/856/997, EDIFACT ORDERS/INVOIC) and a fallback segment inventory for others. This distinguishes it from siblings like parse_edi and validate_edi.

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 implies usage for obtaining a plain-language summary, and the fallback behavior hints at limitations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when to avoid using it. The sibling names provide some context, but the description lacks explicit guidance.

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