es__generate_qr_verifactu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does well: it states the output format (PNG base64), the legal basis, and the exact URL pattern being encoded. It does not go into error cases or whether the tool performs any network call, but 'encodes' strongly implies a local generation, which is adequate for this simple generator.

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 short sentences front-load the core action and output format, then provide the exact encoded URL. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 simple QR generator, the description covers purpose, output type, and legal context. An output schema is present, so return-value details are not required. It is slightly incomplete only in not addressing when the QR should be used relative to the broader VeriFactu workflow.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the parameters feed the AEAT verification URL, but it does not map individual parameters or add details beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action, resource, and output: it generates the mandatory VERI*FACTU QR code (HAC/1177/2024 Art. 10) as a base64 PNG. It also states exactly what the QR encodes (the AEAT verification URL), which differentiates it from the sibling tools that generate XML records, sign documents, or submit batches.

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 usage is implied by the purpose: an agent can infer this tool is for producing the QR image to include with a VeriFactu invoice. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no comparison with related siblings such as generate_verifactu_record.

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