Validate E-Invoice XML

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: details different validators (KOSIT, Mustang, etc.) per format, error output structure, and honesty about backend unavailability. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint).

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 clear and front-loaded with main action. Bilingual adds length but is acceptable. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly shortened without losing meaning.

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 2 simple params, output schema exists, description explains return values (error list with severity, XPath, etc.) and edge case (backend unavailable). Complete for a validation tool.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds value by explaining how format determines which validator runs, providing context beyond the enum list. No extra info for xml parameter, but schema already sufficient.

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, specifies format parameter, and returns errors. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like einvoice_export and send_einvoice.

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 recommends use before dispatch to catch errors without network costs. Provides context on valid=true meaning and honest 'unavailable' response. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions but sufficiently guides usage.

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