Validate XRechnung XML

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that validation covers two layers (XSD schema plus business rules), which is more than the name conveys, but says nothing about outcome reporting, error detail, severity levels, or whether a failed document still returns results.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and scope come first and every word earns its place.

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 validator with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum tell the agent what a call returns (pass/fail flag, list of violations, severity) and which XRechnung profile/version is enforced. None of that is present, so an agent cannot anticipate the result.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'xml' fully. The description adds no format constraints (size limits, encoding, whether the XML can be a file reference vs inline content), which is the baseline for a fully-covered 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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (XRechnung XML document) and adds the validation dimensions. It is clearly distinct from the create_/extract_/analyze_ siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the similar-looking validate_zugferd_pdf, leaving that separation to the resource noun.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite validate_zugferd_pdf sitting in the sibling list as the obvious near-neighbour. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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