es__sign_facturae_xades

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

With no annotations, the description must unilaterally disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the signature algorithm and default policy, but does not state whether the input XML is modified, whether the tool is destructive, or what happens on failure. It lacks details about rate limits, authentication, or output format. The information provided is adequate but insufficient for full transparency.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is not verbose, but it could benefit from a more structured format, such as separating inputs and outputs. However, it efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words.

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?

The description omits critical information about the output (e.g., does it return the signed XML? a status code?). With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It also does not clarify the signature_policy_hash parameter or how the default policy is applied. Given the complexity of digital signing, the description is incomplete.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter individually. The description adds context about the algorithm and default signature policy, but does not significantly increase understanding of any parameter. For high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description only marginally contributes.

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 the tool applies an XAdES-EPES digital signature to a Facturae XML document, specifying the certificate type, algorithm (SHA-256 + RSA), and default policy. It precisely identifies the resource (Facturae XML) and action (signing), distinguishing it from siblings that handle other aspects of Spanish e-invoicing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the sibling tools. It does not mention prerequisites, such as having a valid PKCS#12 certificate, or situations where this tool should not be used (e.g., for non-Facturae documents). The user must infer usage from context.

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