Generate acmt XML from records

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint are all non-destructive/read-only. The description adds that no file is written and returns either validated XML or an error payload, which aligns with annotations. It does not contradict them.

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 relatively concise with a clear introductory sentence, a brief note on return value, and structured arguments. It is well-organized and front-loaded with purpose, though could be slightly more streamlined.

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 only 2 required parameters and presence of output schema, the description fully covers prerequisites, return behavior, and error handling. It references sibling tools for complementary tasks, making it complete for effective use.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains that records are flat account records and gives an example for message_type. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, aiding parameter understanding.

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 generates a validated ISO 20022 acmt XML from in-memory records. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by calling itself the 'primary generation tool' and noting it does not write a file, while referencing validate_records and list_message_types for preparation.

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 provides clear context by instructing users to run validate_records first and list_message_types to confirm message_type strings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, though guidance on prerequisites is strong.

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