einvoice_check_compliance

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by listing specific rule sets checked (e.g., EN 16931, BR-DE rules, SEPA checks) and noting the output is in German. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is well-structured: a clear purpose statement, followed by a rule list and parameter explanations. It is somewhat long due to the detailed rule enumeration, but every section serves a purpose and it is front-loaded with the key functionality.

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?

With annotations and a present output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, key rules, parameters, and output language. It does not explicitly reference sibling tools or edge cases, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. The 'Args' section explains xml_content as the CII-XML string and target_profile with its allowed values ('XRECHNUNG' or 'ZUGFERD'), providing semantics the schema lacks. This is critical for correct invocation.

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's purpose: checking e-invoice compliance against XRechnung or ZUGFeRD. It specifies the exact resource (E-Rechnung) and verb (Prüft die Konformität), and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning combined KoSIT validation, mandatory field checks, and German improvement suggestions.

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?

The description implies usage context (compliance checking with rule lists and suggestions) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like einvoice_validate_xrechnung or state when to use this instead. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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