generate_fattura_xml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about the non-validating behavior, the required top-level dict unwrapping convention, and the exact success and error return shapes, which is exactly the information an agent needs to handle this tool correctly.

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 front-loaded with the core action and workflow position, followed by a concise breakdown of required, optional, and validation behavior. It contains no filler: every sentence covers a decision-relevant aspect such as prerequisites, return values, or the next step.

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's complexity, the description covers provenance of all inputs, required vs optional parameters, the non-validation caveat, the downstream validation step, and both success and error return contracts. The schema carries the remaining per-block constraints, including the FPA12 batching limitation, so nothing critical for correct invocation 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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, and the schema descriptions include the source builder/validator tool for each block. The description adds the key convention that the caller must pass the full dict returned by each tool and that the function unwraps the top-level key, though individual parameter format details still live mostly in the schema.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: it assembles a complete FatturaPA v1.2.3 XML document from prepared blocks. It also clearly differentiates this from the validation tool by stating that it does NOT validate against the XSD schema, so an agent can immediately tell assembly from validation.

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 positions this as step 10 in the invoice generation workflow, requires inputs from the specific builder/validator tools, and tells the agent to call validate_fattura_xsd() as step 11. It lacks explicit routing away from sibling generators such as generate_fattura_semplificata or the UBL/CII tools, but the workflow framing still gives clear context.

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