download_sepa_endpoint_v1_finance_sepa_xml_download_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavior: returns a downloadable XML file, and the cost of 5 credits. But it omits any mention of error handling, validation rules, side effects, or other operational traits. For a tool with a complex schema and no annotations, this is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loads the primary purpose, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, containing only a reference to the sibling and a cost note. It earns a middle score because it is efficient but not sufficiently informative.

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 complex schema (nested objects, 5 parameters, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain the expected input structure, any constraints, or the nature of the response beyond 'downloadable XML'. The agent would lack essential context to correctly invoke this tool.

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 only 20% and most parameters are documented only via examples, not descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter semantics; it only references the sibling tool ('Same as /sepa-xml'), which does not help the agent understand the meaning of fields like 'initg_pty', 'creditor', or 'transactions'. The description fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 states the tool returns a downloadable XML file, using 'Same as /sepa-xml' to point to its sibling. It clearly implies generation of SEPA XML and differentiates from the sibling by the downloadable response. The purpose is understandable but relies on knowing the sibling tool; it does not fully spell out the operation in isolation.

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 distinguishes this from '/sepa-xml' by the downloadable file response, which indirectly tells the agent when to choose this tool (when a file download is needed). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, alternatives beyond the sibling, or any prerequisites. The cost mention is a usage consideration but not a selection guideline.

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