Run ISO 20022 readiness check

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description mainly adds detail on what the tool does (detect, validate, lint, score). It does not contradict annotations and provides extra behavioral context beyond safety traits.

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 sentence plus a compact bullet list for parameters. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence serves a 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 but present), so return values need not be explained. With only one required parameter and simple inputs, the description covers the essential actions. It omits error handling or score mechanics, but overall is adequate for its complexity.

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%, and the description's Args section mostly echoes the schema descriptions. It adds slight value by noting filename_hint is 'for routing' and implicitly clarifying payload_content must be raw text. However, this is minimal additional semantic meaning 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 starts with a clear list of actions: 'Detect, validate, profile-lint, and score a payload's readiness.' It specifies the resource (ISO 20022 payload) and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (list_profiles, remediate_payload, simulate_bank_response) which serve different purposes.

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 by outlining the tool's function, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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