invoice_validate

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses validation behavior, auto-detection, support for multiple profiles/syntaxes, and the remote KoSIT option. It does not mention any side effects, though none are expected for a read-only 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 long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes all necessary details without any fluff. Every sentence provides essential 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's complexity (6 parameters, multiple standards, auto-detection, remote option), the description is comprehensive. It covers the validation standards, return structure, and optional overrides sufficiently, even without an output schema.

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 with good descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining auto-detection of profile/syntax and the general return format (structured report with errors/warnings).

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 invoice XML against specific European standards (ZUGFeRD, XRechnung, EN 16931, KoSIT) and returns a structured report. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like invoice_convert and tax_rules by focusing on validation.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (validation of invoices) and mentions auto-detection of profile/syntax, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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