Validate XML against XSD

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: that validation is against a bundled XSD, and it specifies the return format. No contradictions.

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, with two short paragraphs that front-load the purpose and usage guidelines, followed by return format and args. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple two-parameter validation tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is quite complete. It specifies the return format, which is helpful given no output schema. Minor omission: no mention of error behavior (e.g., if XML is malformed), but this is not critical for a validation tool returning a boolean.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are well-described in the schema with detailed enum and description. The description's Args section essentially repeats the schema information without adding new meaning, so a baseline of 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 'Validate' and the resource 'raw XML string against a message type's bundled XSD'. It differentiates itself from the sibling tool 'generate_message' by explicitly contrasting validation with generation.

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 states when to use this tool ('check an externally produced XML document against the official ISO 20022 schema') and when not to ('To generate a document that is already XSD-validated, use generate_message instead'). This provides clear guidance with an alternative.

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