Get input JSON Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about returning a full JSON Schema but doesn't contradict annotations. No additional behavioral traits are needed given the annotation coverage.

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?

Description is two short paragraphs plus an Args line, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 single parameter with enum, rich annotations, and sibling list, the description fully covers what the tool does, why to use it, and how it relates to others. No output schema is needed as the return is the schema itself.

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. The description adds only a brief 'Args: message_type: A supported ISO 20022 pain message type,' which largely repeats the schema's description. No new 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 clearly states 'Return the full JSON Schema for a message type's flat input record,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning alternative tools for required fields and validation.

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 says when to use ('learn every field, its type, and its constraints before assembling records, or to drive a form/UI') and when not to, with named alternatives ('get_required_fields' and 'validate_records').

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