validate_ereporting_xml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that only XSD validation is performed (no business rules), explains fallback behaviors based on lxml availability, and mentions the return of validation results with errors. However, it does not explicitly state the tool is read-only (though implied).

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses bullet points for validation levels, making it easy to scan. 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers its scope, usage, validation levels, and return information. An output schema exists (not shown), but the description already states 'Returns validation result with errors if any,' which is sufficient. No gaps remain.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameter (xml_content) with a good description, including the lxml requirement. The description adds context about validation levels and schema version, but does not significantly enhance the parameter's semantics beyond what the schema already 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 tool name 'validate_ereporting_xml' is specific, and the description clearly states it validates DGFiP e-reporting FRR XML payloads. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools because no other validation tool exists in the list.

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 explicitly states to use this before submitting to catch structural problems early, and clarifies its scope (XSD schema validation only, no business rules). It does not need to differentiate from alternatives since no other validation tools are present, but could be more explicit about when not to use.

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