validate_mva_melding_json

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns validation result' without explaining what that result contains, whether it checks schema or business rules, or any error behavior. This is too vague for a validation tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action. The second sentence 'Returns validation result' adds little beyond the first and could be considered redundant, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the validation result looks like and what kind of validation is performed. It does not mention the result format, possible outcomes, or required fields of the input object, leaving significant gaps.

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 input schema provides a description for the only parameter ('MVA melding object'), yielding 100% schema coverage. However, the description adds no further meaning about the expected structure or content of the melding, so it does not improve on the 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('a VAT return (MVA-melding)') with the format ('provided as JSON'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool validate_mva_melding_xml by calling out the JSON input 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?

Usage context is implied by the phrase 'provided as JSON', which suggests this tool is for JSON-formatted MVA meldings. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to the XML alternative (validate_mva_melding_xml) for XML input.

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