It Sign Fattura Xades

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that signing is irreversible and requires confirmation, that it uses a signer microservice with fallback, and that the certificate must be qualified PKCS#12. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare action, though it omits details like error handling or side effects on the original file.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds a distinct fact (extension retention, certificate requirement, fallback behavior, confirmation). No fluff or 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not describe return values or expected result format. Combined with 0% schema coverage and unexplained parameters, the agent is left without enough information to invoke the tool reliably. The complexity of the tool (4 params, security-sensitive) demands more than this.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It implies cert_path and cert_password via the PKCS#12 certificate requirement, but never explicitly names or describes any of the four parameters. confirmation_token is not mentioned at all, and xml is only referenced as the document being signed. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly fill the parameters.

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 clearly states the specific action (apply XAdES-BES enveloped XML signature) and the target resource (FatturaPA XML document). It also notes the output retains the .xml extension, which distinguishes it from other signature types like CADES. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions prerequisites (qualified PKCS#12 certificate, confirmation for irreversibility) and a behavioral nuance (microservice fallback), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the sibling tool it__sign_fattura_cades or any other alternative. It gives some context but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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