Parse inbound ISO 20022 XML

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which align with the description's parse/classify nature. The description adds behavioral details such as handling both bare Document and BAH-wrapped envelopes, and lists return fields, providing context beyond 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?

The description is concise (approx 100 words), front-loaded with the purpose, and well-structured with an intro and argument section. No fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists all return fields. It covers handling of both bare and BAH-wrapped messages. For a single-parameter parse tool with good annotations, this is fairly 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% with a detailed description of the 'xml' parameter. The description's Args section repeats this information without adding significant new details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Parse and classify' and the resource 'inbound ISO 20022 XML message'. It lists specific output fields and distinguishes from siblings like generate_message and validate_xml by focusing on identification before processing.

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 explicitly says 'Use this on the receiving side to identify what a message is... before processing it.' This gives clear context. It implies not to use for generation or validation, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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