einvoice_parse

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying that PDF input must be base64-encoded, that both XML and PDF formats are accepted, and by detailing the JSON output structure. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent correctly prepare input.

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 with a front-loaded summary sentence, a detailed but organized bullet list of output fields, and a clear Args section. Every element provides useful information without filler, and the format makes the tool's capabilities easily scannable.

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?

The description covers input formats, parameter encoding, and the full structure of extracted data. Given the tool's complexity (multiple file types, many return fields), this is complete even though an output schema exists. It adds key details (like Base64 for PDFs) that the schema input lacks.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' section thoroughly explains both parameters: file_content accepts an XML string or base64-encoded PDF, and file_type is 'xml' or 'pdf'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 opens with 'Parst eine E-Rechnung (XML oder PDF) und gibt strukturierte Daten zurück', clearly stating the tool parses e-invoices and returns structured data. It explicitly names supported formats (CII-XML, ZUGFeRD/Factur-X PDFs) and is distinct from the sibling generate/validate tools, which focus on different 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?

The description implies usage for extracting invoice data but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the validation or generation siblings. It provides format scope (XML vs PDF) but lacks when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references, so the usage context is only implied.

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