validate_pint_be

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the validation standard (PINT-BE) but does not disclose the behavior of the tool (e.g., what constitutes a failed validation, error handling, permissions, or side effects).

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides valuable context about the standard without extraneous information.

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 one parameter and an output schema exists (not shown), the description adequately covers the input and standard. It could briefly mention what the tool returns (e.g., validation results) but is mostly complete.

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 has 100% coverage (description for 'xml' parameter is present and clear). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 tool validates invoices against PINT-BE rules published by NBB, distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_invoice_be (which likely validates against EN 16931). The verb 'validate' and resource 'invoice' are specific.

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 provides context that PINT-BE is a Belgian extension, implying it should be used for Belgian-specific validation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_invoice_be or when not to use it.

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