einvoice_validate_xrechnung

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the KoSIT-validator scope and the return of errors/warnings/profile, but it does not disclose potential external dependencies, network usage, or rate limits. This is acceptable but not particularly rich.

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 concise with three focused sentences: purpose, return value, and parameter explanation. No fluff, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main action.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, output schema exists), the description covers purpose and parameter well. It lacks explicit usage guidance and does not mention potential external service behavior, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema provides no description for xml_content (0% coverage), but the description compensates with an Args block: 'xml_content: Der vollständige XRechnung-XML-Inhalt als String.' This clarifies that the parameter expects the full XRechnung XML content as a string, adding meaningful semantics beyond the 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?

The description states a specific action: 'Validiert eine XRechnung (CII XML) gegen den KoSIT-Validator.' This clearly identifies the resource (XRechnung/CII XML) and the target (KoSIT validator), distinguishing it from siblings like einvoice_validate_zugferd or einvoice_generate_xrechnung.

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 when needing to validate XRechnung XML, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tool list offers context, but the description itself lacks direct guidance on choosing this validator.

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