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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a safe informational read (listing content topics), and the topic enum suggests a lookup behavior. However, it does not explicitly state there are no side effects, cost implications, or external network dependencies, and it fails to describe the output format.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and a dense list of covered topics. The second sentence about edition coverage adds useful context but could be seen as slightly extraneous. Overall, it is concise and easy to scan.

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 simple info tool with a well-defined enum, the description covers the main content areas. However, it does not clarify the distinction from sibling tools like get_faq, and the absence of an output schema means the response format is left unstated. This creates a completeness gap for an agent deciding which tool to invoke.

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% with detailed descriptions for each enum value, so the schema already explains the parameter. The description adds context about binding to KSeF but no extra parameter syntax or behavior beyond the enum. This meets the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the tool as providing KSeF 2.0 related information, listing specific topics (integration, invoice types, validator, client features, FAQ). It is specific to KSeF and distinct from generic product info, but uses the generic verb 'info' rather than a more active verb like 'retrieve' or 'explain'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_faq or get_product_info. The KSeF focus is implied but not stated as a criterion, and there is no mention of which sibling might be preferred for non-KSeF queries.

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