es__submit_verifactu_to_aeat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions MTLS authentication and certificate requirements, but omits details on response handling, error conditions, rate limits, or side effects. For a submission tool, more information is needed.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and method, the second lists prerequisites. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 critical nature (submission to tax authority), the description lacks details on return values or errors, despite having no output schema. However, with only 2 parameters and no nested objects, it covers the essential context partially.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond repeating that the XML is signed and NIF is the sender. Baseline 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 clearly states the action (sending/submitting a signed VERI*FACTU record) and the resource (AEAT real-time endpoint via MTLS). It distinguishes from siblings like es__cancel_verifactu_record and es__submit_ticketbai, which handle different operations.

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 lists required environment variables but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., es__submit_sii_batch). It does not specify exclusions or context for appropriate use.

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