bulk_send_einvoice

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavior on top of that: dry_run is safe-by-default, and invalid-XML documents are skipped and reported instead of failing the whole run. It still doesn't say whether a real (non-dry-run) submission is irreversible or whether skipped items can be retried.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the safety-relevant default. No filler, though the skip/flag sentence could be tied more tightly to the send behavior it qualifies.

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 bulk mutation that talks to an external authority, the description leaves notable gaps: no batch-size or quota expectations for openWorldHint calls, no indication of what the caller gets back per document (results vs. summary, since there is no output schema), and no note that a real send cannot be undone.

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 80%, so q, ids, type and company_id are already documented. The one real addition is explaining dry_run's effect ("solo verifica"), since the schema lists only a bare default of true; nothing is added about how q and ids interact when both are supplied.

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 gives a specific verb pair and resource ("Verifica e invia allo SdI molte fatture"), and the plural "molte" signals batch scope, which separates it from the single-document send_einvoice sibling. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

It states that dry_run defaults to TRUE and that this means "solo verifica", which is useful operational context, but it never says when to pick this tool over send_einvoice or verify_einvoice, nor when to leave dry_run on versus turn it off (e.g. real submission to SdI).

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