get_invoice_format

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It is silently a read-only lookup with a single required input, but the description never states this, nor does it describe return shape or whether the format string is case-sensitive. The absence of any mutation language makes read-only behavior reasonably inferable, but a 3 reflects the lack of explicit behavioral cues.

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 tightly-written sentence with the operation and the example set front-loaded. No filler or 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?

For a one-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and examples adequately. The main gap is absent guidance on how this differs from adjacent format/standard tools in the sibling set, which for a reference-lookup tool is a minor but real omission.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'format' parameter with a full example list. The description repeats the format examples but adds no syntax, casing, or matching rules beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Get) and resource (details about an e-invoicing format/standard), and enumerates concrete examples (UBL, CII, Factur-X, XRechnung, FatturaPA, Peppol BIS). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_en16931_info and get_einvoicing_requirements, which cover related but different concerns.

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 (look up format reference details) but does not state when to prefer this over get_einvoicing_requirements, get_en16931_info, or other siblings. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, so an agent must infer the distinction from the examples.

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