validate_tsr_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the two-stage process (XSD structural validation followed by Schematron business rules) and the optional xslt2 dependency, giving agents important expectations about execution and requirements.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds necessary behavioral detail about validation stages and dependency.

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, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the input type, the validation steps, and the dependency. It could optionally mention that validation is non-mutating, but that is strongly implied by 'validate'.

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%: the only parameter is already documented as 'Base64-encoded TSR XML document.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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 resource: 'Validate a Peppol Transaction Statistics Report (TSR) document.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling validation tools such as validate_eusr_report and invoice_validate by target document type.

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 tool name and description make the intended use unambiguous: this is the validation entry point for TSR documents. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the unique document type provides clear routing among sibling validation tools.

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