es__parse_aeat_response

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the input transformation, the output format, and the specific data elements extracted (EstadoEnvio, CSV, error details), which gives the agent a solid understanding of behavior. It does not detail malformed-input handling or whether it performs validation, but these are minor for a parser tool.

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 paragraphs: the first states the core purpose, the second enumerates what is extracted. It is front-loaded, free of fluff, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, output schema present) and absence of annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the input scenario, the normalization action, and the key output elements. It could mention behavior on invalid or unexpected XML, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe the return structure.

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%: both 'xml' and 'response_type' have descriptive parameter text. The tool description adds context that the response can be Verifactu or SII, but it does not materially go beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analiza y normaliza') and resource ('una respuesta XML de la AEAT') with a clear output ('JSON estructurado'). It also names the two supported formats (VERI*FACTU o SII) and the key extracted fields, making the tool's function unmistakable and distinct from sibling submit/query/generate tools.

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 clearly establishes the context for use: when you have an AEAT XML response and want structured JSON, this is the tool. It implicitly covers both Verifactu and SII scenarios and mentions extraction of status and error details, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria compared to sibling tools.

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