Submit TicketBAI (Basque Country)

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

Annotations provide no extra details, but the description explains territory auto-detection, sandbox behavior, and return values (TBAI ID and QR URL). It does not cover idempotency or error cases, but for a submission tool, it adequately discloses key behavioral traits.

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 short paragraphs with front-loaded purpose. The bilingual content adds length but is justified. No unnecessary sentences; every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description still adds value by mentioning the specific return fields (TBAI ID, QR URL). It covers territory auto-detection, sandbox, and production requirements. Lacks details on error conditions or idempotency, but is sufficient for typical use.

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%, but the description adds context: sandbox parameter is for test submissions, invoiceId identifies the invoice. It also explains the auto-detection logic for territory, which is not in the schema. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 it submits an invoice to the Basque Country TicketBAI e-invoicing system, with specific verb 'submit' and resource 'invoice'. It is distinct from siblings like ticketbai_status (status check) and ksef_submit (different region), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides guidance on sandbox mode for testing and requirement of a valid certificate for production. While it could explicitly mention using this tool for Basque Country invoices versus other e-invoicing siblings, the territory auto-detection implies it. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit alternatives.

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