es__validate_facturae_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It honestly discloses a conditional behavior: structural validation always occurs, but full schema validation only happens if the XSD is available in specs/facturae/. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema and helps set expectations.

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 terse sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the conditional validation behavior is explained efficiently.

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 tool is simple, has a full input schema, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the core behavior and the key environmental limitation, making it sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'xml' is Facturae XML and that 'schema_version' refers to the official XSD version 3.2.2, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 a specific verb and resource: validating a Facturae XML against the official 3.2.2 XSD. It distinguishes this from sibling generation, submission, and other validation tools by naming the exact schema and document type.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need to validate a Facturae XML against the official schema. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when a different validation tool might be more appropriate.

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