es__validate_verifactu_record

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states two types of validation (structural and schema) and a condition for XSD availability. However, it does not mention read-only nature, error handling, or whether the tool has side effects, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 long, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent 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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description covers validation logic but omits important details like return value format (e.g., success/failure indicators) and error messages. The agent lacks complete context for integrating the 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?

All parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds context by linking schema_version to the specific XSD version from HAC/1177/2024, providing meaning beyond the schema's default value.

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 explicitly states the tool validates a VERI*FACTU XML, performing structural and XSD schema validation. It clearly distinguishes from sibling validation tools like es__validate_facturae_schema and es__validate_ticketbai_schema by targeting the VERIFACTU format.

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?

While the description mentions XSD availability, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of prerequisites or comparisons to other validation tools, relying on the user to infer from sibling names.

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