Remediate an ISO 20022 message

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, implying no modification, but the description discusses applying operations and returning patched XML when apply=true, which contradicts the annotation. The description does not reconcile this inconsistency.

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 a clear summary and parameter list. No fluff, but structure is functional rather than optimized for quick scanning.

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 contradiction and lack of detail about what remediation entails (e.g., adding tags, modifying content), the description feels incomplete. Output schema exists but doesn't compensate for behavioral gaps.

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 the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds context about the default policy and applying operations, but otherwise repeats schema info without significant added meaning.

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 it assesses and remediates every addressed party in a message. It distinguishes from sibling tools like assess_address and remediate_address by operating on the whole message, but it does not explicitly differentiate from assess_message or provide a sibling comparison.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as assess_message or remediate_address. The description mentions default policy and assessment date but does not contextualize usage scenarios or prerequisites.

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