Convert pacs.008 to MT103 fields (reverse mapping)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure — and it delivers. It explicitly states the tool is 'deliberately conservative,' only maps fields it can extract 'with confidence,' and 'flags the rest in the notes array rather than guessing.' This is excellent disclosure of a safety-critical behavioral trait (no hallucinated mappings) that strongly aids agent decision-making.

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 a compact three-sentence block that efficiently covers purpose, use case, and behavioral traits. There is minimal waste. A small deduction because field tags enumeration and the behavior notes could arguably be trimmed, but overall this is tight and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 conversion tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers what input is accepted, the direction of conversion, the use case, and the conservative mapping behavior. It doesn't explicitly describe the return shape (only mentions 'notes array' indirectly), but given no output schema and one param, this is adequate.

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% (the single 'xml' parameter is fully documented as 'The raw pacs.008 message as XML text'), which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying the XML must be an ISO 20022 pacs.008 format message and that parsing is conservative, which helps the agent understand what input is expected. Slight bonus for this enrichment.

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 (parses/maps), the resource (ISO 20022 pacs.008 XML), and the target output (SWIFT MT103 field tags). It enumerates the specific field tags being produced, which directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like convert_mt103_to_pacs008 (reverse direction) and convert_mt202_to_pacs009 (different message type).

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 clear context for when to use: 'during the SWIFT MT/MX coexistence period when a downstream system still expects MT format.' This establishes the use case but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it. The sibling names imply the reverse mapping alternative, but the description doesn't explicitly reference it.

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