Re-submit VeriFactu Submission

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

Discloses idempotent behavior (matching idempotentHint annotation), creation of audit trail entries, and requirement for confirm=true. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two concise English sentences followed by Spanish translation for accessibility. Every sentence adds value: purpose, idempotency, audit trail, confirm requirement, status condition.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with output schema and idempotent annotation, the description covers all necessary behavioral and usage semantics. No gaps for an agent to misuse.

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 all parameters (100%). Description adds context that confirm must be true and that invoiceId refers to a failed invoice, enhancing understanding beyond 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?

Description clearly states the tool re-submits failed/rejected VeriFactu submissions to AEAT. Title and verb 'resubmit' match. Distinguishes from sibling tools like verifactu_status by specifying action on failed invoices.

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 that confirm=true is required. Also mentions idempotency and AEAT deduplication, guiding appropriate usage.

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