validate_eusr_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds real behavioral detail: the two-stage pipeline ('XSD structural validation, then Schematron business rules') and a runtime requirement (the [xslt2] optional extra) that an agent needs before invoking. It does not describe failure behavior for invalid documents, but the output schema covers return values.

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?

Two dense sentences: the purpose is front-loaded in the first, and the validation pipeline plus dependency note fit in the second with zero filler. Every clause 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?

With one fully-documented parameter, an output schema covering the return format, and a low-complexity read-only validation flow, the description covers the essentials. A note on validation-failure behavior or an explicit pointer to sibling validators would round it out, but nothing critical is missing.

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% — report_xml_base64 is fully documented as 'Base64-encoded EUSR XML document.' The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond this, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('Peppol End User Statistics Report (EUSR) document'), and expands the acronym so the document type is unambiguous. The document-type specificity differentiates it from sibling validators such as validate_tsr_report, validate_mls_message, and invoice_validate without needing their schemas.

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?

Usage context is implied by document type — use this when you have an EUSR document to validate — and the sibling list contains clear alternatives. However, the description never explicitly states when to choose this over validate_tsr_report or validate_mls_message, nor does it mention any prerequisites for the input.

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