validate_mva_melding_xml

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key output behavior: 'Returns validation errors, warnings, and deviations.' However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only with no side effects, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations beyond what the schema implies. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaningful information: 'Validate', 'VAT return (MVA-melding) XML document', and the return categories. There is no redundancy or wasted text.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does and what it returns. It stops short of a 5 because it does not describe the structure of the returned errors/warnings or explicitly mention that the XML is not submitted and only validated locally.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (meldingstype and xmlContent), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the action ('Validate') and the specific resource ('a VAT return (MVA-melding) XML document'). It explicitly mentions XML, distinguishing it from the sibling tool validate_mva_melding_json, which validates JSON. This gives a specific verb+resource and differentiates from siblings.

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 that this tool is for validating XML VAT returns, which implies it should be used when the input is XML rather than JSON (as with the sibling validate_mva_melding_json). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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