Submit TicketBAI (Basque Country)

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: territory auto-detection, return values, and certificate requirement. Annotations already indicate it's non-readonly and non-idempotent, but the description does not clarify error behavior or effects on invoice state, which would be more helpful for a submission tool.

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, well-structured with English and Spanish sections, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary repetition or filler.

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, the description adequately covers purpose, territory detection, test/production split, and certificate requirement. It could mention invoice state prerequisites (e.g., must be finalized) but overall sufficient for a tool with simple parameters.

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 both parameters documented. The description adds explanatory context (sandbox means test endpoints, invoiceId is Frihet invoice ID) but does not significantly extend beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it submits an invoice to the Basque Country TicketBAI e-invoicing system, specifies territory auto-detection and return values (TBAI ID and QR code URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ksef_submit (Poland) and face_submit (France) via the title and context.

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 guidance on using sandbox for tests and prerequisite of a valid certificate for production. Though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like ticketbai_status, the context of Basque Country and the sibling list imply when to use this vs other e-invoicing tools.

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