parse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by specifying that pain and acmt families have no parser, preventing a wasteful generate-parse round-trip. No contradiction with 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence could be slightly more streamlined, but it efficiently conveys essential scope limitations. No redundant information; every sentence serves a clear function.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return value details are not needed. The description covers supported families, exclusions, parameter usage tips, and corrects potential misconceptions (no round-trip for pain/acmt). For a parse tool with two well-documented parameters, this is 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is high. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the expected format for message_type (prefer fully-versioned for pain; bare family name resolves to a default) and clarifies that xml is 'Raw ISO 20022 XML'. This reduces ambiguity for the agent.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Parse an inbound ISO 20022 XML message into structured data.' It then explicitly lists supported families (pacs, camt) and distinguishes from siblings by noting that pain and acmt families are not supported for parsing, which is a key differentiator from the 'validate' and 'generate' 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (for inbound pacs/camt messages) and when not to (for pain/acmt families), directing the agent to use 'validate' or XSD validation instead. It also advises on the format of the message_type parameter, including default version resolution for pain messages.

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