es__submit_verifactu_to_aeat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it covers substantial behavior: MTLS authentication, required certificate variables, deferred response handling, deferred status confirmation before chaining records, and the human-in-the-loop confirmation token flow. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 dense but well-structured: main action first, then prerequisites, then deferred-response handling, then the human-in-the-loop note. Every sentence carries distinct operational value; the formatting also makes the critical confirmation workflow easy to spot.

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?

For a submission tool with no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: prerequisites, authentication method, environment variables, deferred-response behavior, next-step querying, and confirmation flow are all covered. The presence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be in the description.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for confirmation_token by explaining the two-call confirmation pattern, which enriches the schema's brief description. NIF and XML are not expanded, but their schema descriptions are adequate.

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 ('Envía'), names the exact resource ('registro VERI*FACTU firmado'), and identifies the endpoint ('tiempo real de la AEAT mediante MTLS'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like es__submit_to_face or es__submit_sii_batch.

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 gives clear operational context: required environment variables, the deferred-response workflow with retry_after_seconds, and explicit routing to es__query_verifactu_status. It does not broadly state when to choose this tool over siblings, but the conditional alternative is explicit enough for most cases.

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