validate_invoice_be

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool applies EN 16931 checks and returns structured error/warning messages, but omits details on auth requirements, side effects, or synchronous behavior. Still, it provides adequate transparency for a validation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary context (profiles, return type). No wasted words.

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 tool has 2 parameters, an output schema (not shown but referenced), and multiple profiles, the description covers the validation logic and return structure sufficiently. It could mention output schema details but is adequate for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by expanding on the 'profile' parameter with full names (Peppol BIS Billing 3.0, etc.) and clarifying the 'xml' parameter as raw content, enhancing 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 validates a UBL 2.1 XML invoice against Belgian business rules, specifying three profiles. It uses a specific verb 'validate' and a distinct resource 'invoice', differentiating it from siblings like 'generate_invoice_be' or 'parse_ubl_invoice_be'.

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 explains the validation scope (Belgian rules, three profiles) but does not explicitly state when not to use it. However, the context of sibling tools and the clear purpose implies usage for validation, not creation or parsing.

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