generate_qr_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output structure (JSON with qr_base64 and decoded data) but omits details on error handling, validation failures, or performance characteristics.

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 introductory sentence, a structured parameter list, and a summary of the return value. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (confirmed by context signals), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and output. It is complete for a simple generation tool, though it could mention error scenarios or assumptions.

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 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 5 required parameters, including format hints (e.g., 15-digit vat_number, ISO 8601 timestamp) and examples, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 generates a ZATCA-compliant TLV-encoded QR code. It specifies the output format (Base64), the standard (ZATCA TLV), and the use case (printed invoices), distinguishing it from siblings like decode_qr 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?

The description implies usage for generating QR codes on invoices but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like decode_qr or validate_invoice. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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