Invia fattura a SDI

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does an excellent job: explicitly warns that with dryRun=false the invoice is REALLY sent to SDI, clarifies the default dryRun=true only validates, and instructs that the XML must declare Aruba as intermediary. It also covers signed-file behavior (CAdES/XAdES endpoint). Minor gap: doesn't state what the response looks like or what happens on validation failure, but given no annotations, the disclosure is strong.

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?

Three sentences, all dense with actionable information: purpose, critical dryRun warning, default behavior, prerequisite (IdTrasmittente), and input method recommendation. Zero filler. The warning is appropriately front-loaded right after the main purpose statement.

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?

This is a high-stakes mutation tool (real invoice submission) with 5 parameters and no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the critical safe-mode behavior, prerequisite validation, and input selection. Minor gap: doesn't mention expected return/response format, validation error behavior, or post-submission tracking (e.g., how to get notification later via get_invoice_notifications sibling). A bit more on outcomes would make it complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds value by recommending xmlFilePath over xmlContent and noting senderPIVA is only needed for TD26/multi-azienda cases. This is extra context beyond schema. However, much of the important semantic detail (dryRun behavior, signed endpoint) lives in the schema, so the description's marginal contribution is moderate.

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 the tool loads an XML e-invoice onto Aruba for submission to the Sistema di Interscambio (SDI). It has a specific verb (carica/invia), specific resource (fattura elettronica XML, Aruba, SDI), and differentiates from siblings like search_invoices, get_invoice_detail, and download_invoice which are clearly distinct read operations.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance with the critical dryRun=true default safety warning, and contrasts with siblings which are read-only tools. It explains the real-send side effect requires dryRun=false, and gives clear rules about the XML needing Aruba as trasmittente (IdTrasmittente 01879020517). Also addresses which input method to use (xmlFilePath recommended over xmlContent).

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