Re-submit VeriFactu Submission

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it creates an audit trail entry per attempt and requires confirm=true, which is useful beyond annotations. 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 bilingual (English and Spanish), doubling length but serving a multilingual user base. Key info is front-loaded: purpose, idempotency, audit trail, requirement. Could be more concise by dropping the trust area tag, but still efficient.

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 annotations (idempotentHint) and required params, the description covers the essential behavioral points: idempotency, audit trail, confirm requirement, and invoice status condition. Lacks error scenarios or response details, but output schema may cover return values.

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. Description adds the constraint that confirm must be true and that invoiceId must belong to a failed invoice. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare schema.

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 re-submits a failed or rejected VeriFactu submission to AEAT. The phrase 'TRUST AREA — COMPLIANCE' sets domain context. Distinguishes from siblings like 'send_invoice' (new submission) and 'verifactu_status' (status check).

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 states 'Only use on invoices with status="failed".' and 'Requires confirm=true.' Provides clear when-to-use context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but condition is precise enough for correct selection.

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