es__submit_ticketbai

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals automatic endpoint routing per province, a key behavioral trait. However, it omits other aspects like authentication needs, idempotency, side effects (likely safe), or whether submission is synchronous.

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. The first states the core purpose; the second provides essential routing detail. No 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?

Given 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key action and routing. It lacks mention of response format, error states, or async behavior. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a submission 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?

The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how the 'province' parameter determines the target endpoint (routing details). This compensates for the missing schema description for 'province'. The 'xml' and 'nif' parameters are adequately described in 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 clearly states the tool sends a TicketBAI XML to the corresponding Basque provincial authority, specifying the verb (Envía), resource (registro TicketBAI XML), and target (autoridad provincial vasca). It distinguishes siblings like generate_ticketbai_xml and validate_ticketbai_schema by focusing on 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies submission after generation/validation but doesn't mention alternatives or prerequisites.

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