submit_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully explains the action (sending to ZATCA's Fatoora API) and key behaviors like mode selection and environment. It lacks details on side effects, authentication beyond parameters, or failure handling, but for a submission tool it is sufficiently transparent.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by a bulleted Args list and Return statement. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; could be a bit more concise without losing clarity.

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 complexity (7 params, 5 required) and absence of structured output schema, the description covers all parameters, mode distinctions, environment, and return format. It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though sibling relationships are not elaborated.

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?

The description provides detailed explanations for all 7 parameters (e.g., signed_invoice_xml as 'Signed UBL 2.1 XML invoice string', invoice_hash as 'Base64-encoded SHA-256 hash'), compensating fully for the 0% schema coverage. Each parameter's purpose and format are clearly defined.

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 'Submit' and the resource 'signed invoice to ZATCA for reporting or clearance'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like generate_invoice, validate_invoice, and sign_invoice by focusing on submission to ZATCA.

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 explicitly specifies when to use 'reporting' mode for B2C and 'clearance' mode for B2B, providing clear context. However, it does not directly state when not to use this tool or offer alternatives among siblings, though the implied usage is clear.

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