invoicehub

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

Discloses validation step ('never a document that has not been checked'), aligns with idempotentHint. Also notes API key requirement for Pro plan. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. While slightly lengthy, every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy ('never a document that has not been checked') but acceptable.

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?

Covers input/process/output adequately for a conversion tool with no output schema. References sibling tool for availability. No major gaps given complexity and annotation richness.

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond input schema: explains format IDs in detail (UBL_2.1, UN_CEFACT_CII, etc.), notes base64 encoding for binary formats, and clarifies API key constraints. Schema coverage is 100%, but description enriches understanding.

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 tool converts e-invoices between formats using the EN 16931 model, parsing, re-serializing, and validating. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning list_supported_formats and validate_invoice implicitly through the validation step.

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 detailed format descriptions with real-world context (e.g., Germany B2G, France B2B). Mentions API key requirement and suggests calling list_supported_formats for availability. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but the context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that validation uses EN 16931 Schematron and returns failing business rules, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence states purpose and input, second describes output. No superfluous words; all information is front-loaded.

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 one parameter and no output schema, description adequately covers the return value (valid boolean + failing rules). However, the exact output format is not detailed, which might require slight inference.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage. Description adds that the XML can also be a credit note and specifies the target schematron, augmenting the schema's 'Raw UBL 2.1 invoice XML' description.

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?

Clearly states it validates a UBL 2.1 invoice XML string against a specific standard (EN 16931 Schematron). Includes mention of credit notes, distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like convert_invoice or generate_invoice.

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?

Implicitly clear: use when you need to check invoice compliance with EU standard. No explicit when-not or alternative mentions, but sibling names are sufficiently distinct to avoid confusion.

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