get_en16931_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the content scope of the lookup, which implies a safe, read-only reference call, but never explicitly states that it is non-mutating or describes the shape of what is returned. Adequate for a zero-parameter static lookup, but thin.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the covered sub-topics. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally indicate what form the returned information takes, and it does not. For a simple zero-parameter reference tool the content scope is probably enough to call it correctly, but the return-value picture is left blank.

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 tool takes no parameters, so per the calibration the baseline is 4. There is nothing further for the description to clarify about inputs.

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 names a specific verb and resource — the EN 16931 standard — and enumerates the three content areas (core syntaxes, CIUS extensions) the caller will receive. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as get_einvoicing_requirements or get_invoice_format.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus the overlapping siblings (get_einvoicing_requirements, get_invoice_format, validate_invoice_fields). Usage is only inferable from the topic name; no context, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.

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