Validate E-Invoice XML

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), describes which validators run per format, return structure, and that valid=true means passes all checks. Also notes stub response and real endpoint, providing full behavioral context.

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?

Contains multiple sentences with some redundancy (Spanish/English duplication). Each sentence adds value, but could be more streamlined by removing the note about real endpoint or merging language versions.

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?

Complete: input schema covers params, annotations cover safety, output schema assumed, description explains behavior, validators, and use case. No gaps.

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 covers 100% of params with descriptions. Description adds value by explaining that format determines which validator is used, but does not add syntax details beyond schema. Baseline 3, plus extra context.

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 it validates e-invoice XML against schema and schematron rules. Specific verb 'validate' and resource 'e-invoice XML document'. Distinguishes from siblings as the only validation tool among invoice-related tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before dispatch to catch errors early without incurring network transmission costs,' providing clear context. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but sibling tools do not compete.

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