Submit to KSeF (Poland)

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

Beyond annotations (which show non-readonly, non-destructive), description reveals the tool is a forward-compatible stub that returns NotImplementedYet until certificates are issued, plus mode behaviors. This fully prepares the agent for expected behavior.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections, but includes redundant bilingual content (English and Spanish) which nearly doubles length. Front-loaded with purpose, but the duplication could be trimmed without loss of 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?

With output schema present and only 2 parameters, the description fully covers tool behavior, current limitations, and mode environments. No gaps in information needed for correct agent invocation.

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 both parameters (mode enum, invoiceId). Description repeats mode explanations already present in schema, adding no new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states the tool submits invoices to Polish KSeF system, with explicit modes (mock, sandbox, production). Distinguishes from generic einvoice tools by specifying the national system.

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?

Provides clear usage context for each mode and discloses that the production endpoint is not yet active, guiding agents to use mock/sandbox for testing. Lacks explicit alternatives for other e-invoicing systems, but the tool name implies Poland-specific usage.

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