validate_ereporting_xml

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

No annotations provided; description details validation logic, fallback behavior (lxml/stdlib), and return of errors. Does not explicitly state it's read-only, but mutation is unlikely for validation.

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?

Concise sentences with clear hierarchy (purpose, then validation levels). Front-loaded with key action and audience; no filler.

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?

Covers purpose, dependencies, return type ('validation result with errors'), and fallback behavior. Lacks detailed output schema description but is sufficient for a validation 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?

Input schema already provides 100% coverage; description adds context ('complete Report document', 'per DGFiP Spécifications Externes v3.2'), reinforcing expected format and standard.

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?

Explicitly states validation of DGFiP e-reporting FRR XML, matching the tool name. Differentiates from sibling 'submit_flow' by indicating pre-submission use.

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?

Advises using 'before submitting' and lists validation levels (xsd, wellformedness, none) with dependency info. Lacks explicit exclusions compared to siblings but provides clear context.

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