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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses irreversibility (an accepted document cannot be withdrawn), that the operation is not retried, the confirmation requirement, and the meaning of each return code (-1/0/1/2). The annotations only flag destructive/non-idempotent; the description explains the practical consequences.

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?

Dense but zero-waste: purpose, irreversibility warning, prerequisite, retry guidance, and return codes are all front-loaded in four short sentences. Every clause carries actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return payload (text, sent, and the code values). Combined with the endpoint and safety caveats, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so cif, number, series_name and confirm are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the confirm requirement but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (SEND) and resource (issued invoice to ANAF e-Factura/SPV), plus the underlying endpoint POST /api/docs/einvoice. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like oblio_issue_invoice or oblio_cancel_document.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition (confirm: true plus the user's approval), the when-not-to-retry rule, and names the alternative oblio_list_invoices with with_einvoice_status for checking status before repeating. Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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