chorus_submit

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It explicitly mentions required environment variables for authentication, which is useful behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects, success/failure behavior, or response characteristics, so the transparency is partial.

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: two sentences covering action, purpose, and prerequisites. It front-loads the core action and integrates the mandatory context without unnecessary detail.

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 submission tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose and authentication needs but omits what happens after submission, such as returned status or how to track via sibling tools. It provides partial but not complete operational context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Soumet une facture Factur-X') and a clear target platform ('Chorus Pro'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like facturx_generate and facturx_validate by focusing on submission as the unique operation.

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 provides clear context: this tool is mandatory for billing the French state, indicating when it should be used. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of full directional guidance.

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