invoice_parse

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It clearly explains the extraction process (e.g., XML extraction from PDF/A-3 attachment) and indicates the tool returns JSON without side effects. However, it lacks explicit statements about mutability or authorization requirements, but these are indirectly clear from the parsing nature.

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 consists of three focused sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and efficiently covers input, processing, and output. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 complexity of supporting multiple input formats and extraction, the description covers the main aspects. It lacks details on the output schema, error conditions, or performance, but these are reasonable omissions for a parse tool. The description is complete enough for typical usage.

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 coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters described). The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining input formats and the PDF extraction mechanism. However, the include_raw_xml parameter is not mentioned anywhere, leaving a gap.

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 identifies the tool as an invoice parser for ZUGFeRD/XRechnung formats, stating specific input types (raw XML, base64 XML, base64 PDF). It distinguishes itself from siblings like invoice_convert or invoice_validate by focusing on extraction, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies usage for extracting structured data from invoices but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like invoice_convert or invoice_validate. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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