beliq: Validate E-Invoice

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable behavioral details: rules are authority-pinned and drift-checked, returns verdict, format, profile, ruleset version, and detailed errors/warnings with rule id, severity, location, message.

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?

Two sentences, first covers purpose and output comprehensively, second clarifies boundaries. No redundancy, every word adds value.

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 complexity (4 params, output schema present), description covers input formats, action, and output summary. It also sets expectations about what the tool does not do (transmission/archiving). Return values are detailed in output schema, so not needed in description.

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% and parameters are well-described in schema. Description adds context: 'auto' default for format, mutual exclusivity of document vs documentPath, and French CTC overlay. Slight improvement over 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?

Clear verb 'validate' with specific resource 'EU electronic invoice'. Specifies scope (authority-pinned, drift-checked rules) and output (compliance verdict). Distinguishes from sibling tool 'beliq_check_account' by focusing on invoice validation.

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?

Explicitly states the tool validates only, not for transmission/archiving/reporting. Describes accepted input types (UBL, CII, Factur-X/ZUGFeRD PDF). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparison to sibling, but context is clear.

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