Validate EDI envelopes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returning errors and warnings, but does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, auth needs, side effects). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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: first states the specific validation checks, second describes output. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.

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 single-parameter validation tool, the description explains what is checked and what is returned. No output schema but description covers return type. Could mention that it does not parse into structured data, but still fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a descriptive parameter comment. The tool description adds purpose but no additional parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 validates structural integrity of X12 or EDIFACT documents, listing specific checks (control number agreement, segment/transaction counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'parse_edi' (parsing) and 'summarize_edi' (summarization).

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 use for validation before parsing/summarizing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Lacks clear usage context.

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