to_pacs008

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context about the output format (using pacs.008 field names) and business purpose, which goes beyond annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 presence of a detailed input schema and output schema, the description is adequately complete. It explains the tool's purpose and output format. The only minor gap is a lack of explicit prerequisite reference (e.g., mandate must be canonical from normalize tools), but this is covered in the schema.

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 provides 100% coverage for the mandate parameter, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add new information about the parameter itself; it focuses on the output. No additional semantics provided 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 'convert' and the resource 'canonical mandate into a pacs.008 record', explaining its use for interbank settlement of an agent-authorised payment. This distinguishes it from siblings like to_pain001 (which produces pain.001) and normalize tools.

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 converting a canonical mandate to a pacs.008 record for interbank settlement, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives beyond the implicit purpose.

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