Assess an ISO 20022 message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it assesses every addressed party and specifies default behavior, which is consistent with annotations and provides context beyond them.

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 extremely concise: three sentences for purpose and an argument list. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simple parameter set and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: supported message types, defaults, and core function. It does not mention preconditions or error handling, but this is acceptable given the output schema.

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 parameters are well-described. The description adds value by specifying that the xml parameter must be a pacs.008 or pain.001 message, and clarifies defaults for policy_id and as_of. This complements the schema without redundancy.

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 action ('assess'), the specific resource ('every addressed party in a pacs.008 / pain.001 message'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like assess_address (single address) and remediate_message (modification).

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 implies usage when assessing a pacs.008 or pain.001 message, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like assess_address or remediate_message. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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