es__parse_aeat_response

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes parsing and normalization without side effects, but it does not explicitly confirm idempotency or safety. The agent has to infer this from the parse-like verb.

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 focused sentences front-load the action and output. No extraneous information; every word 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 parameter count (2) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output structure (EstadoEnvio, CSV, errors). It lacks details on error handling or XML input expectations, but remains mostly complete for a parse tool.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no further detail about parameter values or usage beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 it analyzes and normalizes AEAT XML responses (VERI*FACTU or SII) to structured JSON, extracting specific fields (EstadoEnvio, CSV, error details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on generation or submission.

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?

It indicates the tool is for parsing XML responses and specifies a default response_type ('verifactu'), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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