Validate Tsr Report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a generic 'validates' by stating that XSD structural validation runs first, followed by Schematron business-rule checks, and it warns that the Schematron step requires the [xslt2] optional extra. This gives an agent useful operational expectations, though side-effect/error behavior is not detailed.

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 sentences, no filler: the first states the tool's purpose, the second explains the validation process and dependency. Information is front-loaded and 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?

For a one-parameter validation tool with an output schema present, the description covers the key operational context: document type, validation steps, and a required extra. It does not explicitly state what happens if the xslt2 extra is missing or describe return semantics, but the output schema likely covers result shape, so no major gap remains.

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 already documents the sole parameter as 'Base64-encoded TSR XML document,' giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond confirming the document type, 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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Validate a Peppol Transaction Statistics Report (TSR) document.' It then details the two validation stages (XSD, then Schematron), which clearly separates it from sibling validation tools like validate_eusr_report or invoice_validate.

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 specifies a clear use case: validation of TSR documents, and explains the validation pipeline. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or give a when-not-to-use condition, but the resource-specific wording ('TSR') makes the intended scenario unambiguous.

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