Submit to KSeF (Poland)

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints, but the description is highly transparent: it openly states this is a forward-compatible stub that currently returns NotImplementedYet. It also explains that mock mode has no network call, sandbox uses KSeF test, production uses live. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise: purpose sentence, mode list (bulleted in source but plain in provided text), and stub note. Every sentence provides essential information. Bilingual text is justified for a tool targeting Polish and Spanish contexts.

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?

Despite being a stub, the description fully explains current behavior (returns error), modes, and future availability. No missing elements: output schema exists, so return details are not needed. Prerequisites like valid invoice are implied.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining each mode's behavior (mock is local simulation, sandbox is KSeF test, production is live), and the stub note clarifies that the tool is not yet functional. This adds value beyond schema enum values.

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 explicitly states the tool submits invoices to Polish KSeF, distinguishing it from other e-invoice tools like einvoice_export, send_einvoice, and country-specific tools (ticketbai_submit, verifactu_submit). The verb 'Submit' and resource 'Polish KSeF' are clear.

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?

Modes (mock, sandbox, production) provide context for when to use each. However, no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over e-invoice alternatives for other countries. The stub note implies it's not yet functional, which is a clear usage constraint.

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