validate_ereporting_xml

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses validation behavior, returns validation result with errors, and describes three validation levels (xsd, wellformedness, none). Does not mention side effects, but as a validation tool, it's clearly read-only.

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?

Description is concisely structured with multiple sentences, front-loading the purpose and scope, then providing details on validation levels. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple validation tool with one parameter and an output schema (implied), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it validates, against what specification, return type, and validation levels. No critical gaps.

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?

Single parameter 'xml_content' is fully described in schema (100% coverage) and tool description adds context about XML format and validation scope. Description also details validation levels, enhancing understanding of parameter usage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool validates a DGFiP e-reporting XML payload against XSD schema, specifying scope (XSD only, no business rules) and version (v3.2). It distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_facturx by targeting a specific XML 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?

Explicitly advises use 'before submitting to catch structural problems early' and mentions validation levels. Implies alternatives for business rule checks but doesn't explicitly list when not to use; references README for scope details.

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