Submit to KSeF (Poland)

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

The description transparently discloses the stub status and the error behavior, which annotations alone do not cover. Annotations lack an explicit hint for stub, but the description fills that gap. No contradictions with annotations.

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 slightly bloated by bilingual content (English and Spanish), which is unnecessary for an AI agent's understanding. Core information is front-loaded, but every sentence does not earn its place due to the duplication.

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 output schema exists, return value details are not needed. The description covers submission modes, stub status, and error behavior. It is complete for a tool that is not yet fully functional, though it could mention whether it is idempotent.

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% with descriptions for both mode and invoiceId. The description adds value by elaborating on mode enum values (mock, sandbox, production) with actual environment URLs, and explains invoiceId as 'Frihet invoice ID'. This provides context beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 submits invoices to the Polish KSeF system, a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ticketbai_submit or send_einvoice by specifying the Polish national system and its mandatory rollout context.

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 details three modes (mock, sandbox, production) and explicitly notes the tool is a stub returning NotImplementedYet error until PR #417, guiding the agent on current limitations. It does not, however, explicitly compare to alternative e-invoice tools or provide when-not-to-use advice.

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