Get input JSON Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds the 'flat' aspect of the input record and that it returns the full JSON Schema, but does not elaborate further on behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Concise: three main sentences plus an Args section. Front-loaded with purpose. No extraneous information; every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (single parameter, rich annotations, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it relates to siblings. The return value is implied as a JSON Schema object.

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. Description provides a concrete example ('e.g. 'pacs.008.001.08' FI-to-FI Customer Credit Transfer') which adds some value beyond the enum list, but overall does not significantly enhance 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?

Description states 'Return the full JSON Schema for a message type's flat input record' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings such as get_required_fields and validate_records, clearly differentiating its purpose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('to learn every field... or to drive a form/UI') and when not to use ('For just the required-field names use get_required_fields; to check records against this schema use validate_records'). Provides clear context and alternatives.

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