parse

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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the per-family parser coverage limit, that pain/acmt round-trips fail, and that parsing is pure in-memory. These are consequential behavioral constraints an agent cannot derive from the 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and structured with 'When to use / Not for / Behavior' labels. There is mild redundancy between the coverage sentence and the 'Not for' line, both restating that pain/acmt are outbound-only with no parser.

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?

For a two-parameter parsing tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers coverage limits, usage boundaries, alternatives, and execution behavior. No material gap remains for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully constrains the valid domain of message_type by stating only pacs and camt families are parseable. It adds practical meaning beyond the schema's example values without restating syntax.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Parse an inbound ISO 20022 XML message into structured data') and immediately bounds scope to inbound messages. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like validate and generate, which the 'Not for' section reinforces.

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?

Has explicit 'When to use' and 'Not for' sections naming the exact conditions (pacs.008, camt.053 inbound) and the excluded families (pain.001, acmt.001), routing the agent to 'validate' or XSD validation as the alternative. Nothing is left to inference.

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