Get input JSON Schema

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description confirms it's a safe read-only operation. It adds context about returning a 'flat input record' schema, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide.

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 concise with two focused paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and high schema coverage, the description adequately explains what the tool does and how to use it. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format, but the tool name and context make it clear.

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 detailed description of message_type. The description adds an example ('acmt.001.001.08') and references list_message_types for valid values, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Return' and resource 'full JSON Schema' for a message type's flat input record. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_required_fields and validate_records by mentioning alternatives.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('to learn every field...before assembling records, or to drive a form/UI') and when not to, pointing to get_required_fields and validate_records for other needs.

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