invoice_validate

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

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it returns a structured report with errors and warnings, supports auto-detection of profile and syntax, and validates against specific rules. It does not mention potential side effects or rate limits, but for a read-only validation tool, this is sufficient.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and standards, and includes all necessary details without any redundant 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 complexity of invoice validation with multiple standards and profiles, the description covers the purpose, supported formats, auto-detection, and return structure. It lacks details on error handling or output schema, but the description of the return type is adequate for a validation tool.

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 description adds meaning beyond the 100% schema coverage by explaining auto-detection of profile and syntax, and that the tool returns a structured validation report. This helps agents understand that the 'profile' and 'syntax' parameters are optional overrides.

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 ZUGFeRD 2.x and XRechnung 3.x invoice XML against specific standards (EN 16931, KoSIT Schematron) and returns a structured validation report. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like invoice_parse (parsing) and invoice_create (creation) by specifying the exact validation purpose.

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 implicitly guides when to use this tool: when validation of these invoice formats is needed. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use instructions, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., invoice_convert for conversion) makes the usage clear.

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