Simulate a bank response

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

The description adds behavioral context (mocking a bank response, emitting a status report) beyond annotations which already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. It clarifies the tool is non-destructive and simulates outcomes.

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 clear and structured with bullet-like args. It is reasonably concise, though it could be slightly leaner by not repeating parameter names.

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 tool has an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It sufficiently explains the simulation behavior and parameter roles. Could mention the output is a pacs.002 status report, but overall 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds key constraint: reason_code is required when RJCT, which is not fully explicit in the schema (schema has default null but no conditional requirement in description). This adds value 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 tool emits a pacs.002 status report mocking a bank's response, with a specific verb ('emit') and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_profiles or run_readiness_check.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when simulation is appropriate vs real bank responses. Usage is implied by the simulation nature.

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