es__validate_verifactu_record

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior: structural validation always occurs, while XSD schema validation only happens if the v1.0 XSD is available in specs/verifactu/. This conditional dependency is meaningful, though it does not cover error response behavior.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: the main operation first, then the conditional validation detail. There is no redundant restatement of parameter names or schema fields.

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 two-parameter validation tool with an output schema, the description covers the core operation and the main runtime condition (XSD availability). It could be more complete by stating expected error behavior or recommending it before submission to AEAT, but nothing essential is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value by connecting schema_version to XSD v1.0 (HAC/1177/2024) and the specs/verifactu/ path. This gives the agent more concrete context for the schema_version parameter than the input schema alone provides.

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 opens with 'Valida un registro VERI*FACTU XML', naming a specific verb and resource, and then clarifies the two validation levels: structural and schema. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate, submit, query, or cancel Veri*Factu records, and from validate_facturae_schema.

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 makes the tool's context clear—use it to validate a VERI*FACTU XML record—but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mentions exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directly stated.

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