normalize_pain001

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description reinforces this with 'pure, deterministic, read-only data normalization' and adds the input-hygiene constraint about not passing raw XML, but it does not say what happens on malformed/empty documents or how errors surface.

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?

Clearly front-loaded and parsed into labeled sections (Purpose / When to use / When NOT to use / Behavioral transparency) that make it skimmable. Slight redundancy between the opening sentence and the Purpose paragraph, but no filler and nothing critical buried.

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 single-parameter normalizer, the description covers purpose, routing to alternatives, and input preconditions, while the output schema carries return-value details and annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds domain framing (parsed pain.001 document OR transaction list, and that fields are mapped to id/amount/reference) but no format or structure detail beyond what the schema already conveys.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (convert parsed pain.001 instructions into canonical expected records) and names the domain (ISO 20022 credit transfers) explicitly. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling normalize_camt053 by naming it as the wrong tool for bank statements, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use conditions (ingesting parsed pain.001 before reconcile, mapping heterogeneous fields to uniform id/amount/reference) and when-NOT-to-use conditions with the named alternative (camt.053 → normalize_camt053). It further states a concrete prerequisite: parse/deserialize raw XML before passing it in.

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