validate_eusr_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a two-stage validation pipeline—XSD structural validation followed by Schematron business rules—and notes the [xslt2] optional extra requirement. This gives the agent important expectations beyond the tool name, though it does not state side-effect absence or failure behavior.

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 two short, dense sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the validation pipeline and dependency note are concise and material.

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?

For a single-parameter validation tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the document type, explains validation stages, and flags the optional dependency. It could be more complete by explicitly noting what the tool returns or how it handles Schematron unavailability, but the output schema mitigates the return-value gap.

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 already describes report_xml_base64 as 'Base64-encoded EUSR XML document' with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Validate a Peppol End User Statistics Report (EUSR) document.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like validate_tsr_report and validate_invoice_be by the exact document type it handles.

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 intended use is implied by naming the document type, so an agent can infer this tool is for EUSR validation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as validate_tsr_report for other report types.

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