Validate Eusr Report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the two-stage validation behavior (XSD structural validation followed by Schematron business rules) and flags the optional [xslt2] dependency. It does not mention side effects, but validation is reasonably understood as non-mutating.

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 short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. The note about the optional extra is relevant and concise.

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 present, the description covers the input nature, the validation process, and a key dependency. It is slightly limited by not clarifying when to prefer this over sibling validators, but otherwise the agent has enough to invoke it 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?

The single parameter has full schema description coverage, so the schema already documents that it takes a base64-encoded EUSR XML document. The description adds process-level context but no additional parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Validate') and the specific resource: a Peppol End User Statistics Report (EUSR) document. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like validate_tsr_report or validate_mls_message, but the document-type specification makes its purpose unambiguous.

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: it is the tool to call when you have an EUSR document to validate. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions, and it does not mention the closely related sibling validators that handle other report formats.

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