validate_skattemelding

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

The description discloses that the tool returns errors, warnings, and deviations, which is useful output context. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it writes anything) or any authentication requirements. The absence of these details makes this adequate but not exceptional.

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, tightly worded sentence that includes the action, resource, timing, and return type. There is no extraneous information, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has low complexity with two simple parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the core aspects of purpose and output. It could further detail the structure of the returned errors or mention any limitations, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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 100% coverage with both parameters ('xmlContent' and 'inntektsaar') having descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already exposes, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool validates a tax return XML document before submission, using the specific verb 'Validate' and the resource 'tax return XML document'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like validate_mva_melding_xml by specifying 'skattemelding' while mentioning a distinct purpose ('before submission').

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 phrase 'before submission' provides clear context on when to use the tool. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives like validation for other XML types (e.g., VAT), though the name and resource distinguish it sufficiently.

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