validate_tsr_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well. It reveals that validation runs XSD structural validation followed by Schematron business rules, and it discloses the dependency on the optional [xslt2] extra. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the input schema or output schema would reveal.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the process/dependency detail follows in a compact second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complete. It identifies the document type, explains the validation pipeline, and calls out the xslt2 prerequisite. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter, report_xml_base64. The description adds no extra semantics about the parameter, but none is needed given the schema fully covers it. 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 uses a specific verb ('Validate') and a specific resource ('Peppol Transaction Statistics Report (TSR) document'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling validators like validate_invoice_be, validate_eusr_report, and validate_mls_message. The title is null, but the description itself fully disambiguates the tool.

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 clearly establishes that this tool is for validating TSR documents, giving an agent unambiguous context for when to select it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the target document type is specific enough that an agent can route correctly. The validation pipeline detail also clarifies what 'validate' means here.

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