parse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the 'read-only and idempotent' sentence is largely redundant. However, the description carries real non-annotated behavior: coverage is per-family, and pain/acmt have no parser at all. That asymmetry is the kind of thing structured fields cannot express.

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, then organized into labeled usage/behavior blocks. Slightly repetitive — the family restriction is stated twice (coverage sentence and 'When NOT to use') — but every block is functional and nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. With both required parameters documented at 100% coverage, annotations covering safety, and the family-coverage constraint spelled out, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by limiting which message_type values are actually parseable (pacs/camt only, pain/acmt excluded) and by framing the parameter as family-scoped, which the schema alone does not state.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (Parse), resource (inbound ISO 20022 XML message), and output (structured data), then immediately scopes it to pacs/camt families. This lets an agent distinguish it from 'generate' (outbound) and 'validate' without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, including concrete message types (pacs.008, camt.053) and a named alternative ('use validate or the backing server's XSD validation'). It also warns against a specific misuse pattern: generate→parse round-trips for pain.001/acmt.001.

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