Re-submit VeriFactu Submission

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the idempotency mechanism ('uses the same hash chain; AEAT deduplicates by hash') and the creation of audit trail entries. No contradictions.

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 bilingual, which takes space but is justified for the context. It is front-loaded with a trust area label and then concise sentences. Could be slightly more terse 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?

Covers prerequisites (failed status, confirm=true), idempotency, audit trail, and parameter descriptions. With an output schema present, return value explanation is not needed. Missing minor details like error handling, but still complete enough.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description barely adds meaning beyond reiterating 'confirm must be true' and 'invoiceId'. Baseline 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 verb 'Re-submit' and the specific resource 'VeriFactu submission to AEAT', with scope 'failed or rejected'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'verifactu_status' and 'face_submit' by specifying the context of resubmission.

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 'Only use on invoices with status="failed"' and 'Requires confirm=true', providing clear conditions. However, it does not compare to alternative tools or specify when not to use beyond the status condition.

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