It Submit To Sdi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose important traits: the submission is irreversible, requires confirmation, requires mTLS, and returns the IdentificativoSDI. It does not explain the confirmation mechanism or failure/rejection behavior, but the core safety-critical information is present.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by prerequisites, return value, and the irreversibility warning. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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 an irreversible submission tool with no annotations and no schema parameter descriptions, the description covers prerequisites, outcome, and confirmation requirement but leaves gaps: how confirmation_token is obtained and used, whether it is actually required given the schema default null, and expected filename constraints. The ambiguity between 'Requires confirmation' and an optional/nullable confirmation_token prevents full completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description never names the parameters or explains their exact semantics. It vaguely relates to signed_file_base64 by saying the invoice must be signed, and hints at confirmation_token via 'Requires confirmation,' but filename and confirmation_token usage are left unexplained. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Submit a signed FatturaPA invoice to SDI via SDICoop.' This clearly differentiates the tool from signing, checking status, or parsing SDI notifications among the siblings. It is not a tautology and names the exact submission action.

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 clearly tells when the tool is appropriate: the invoice must already be signed with XAdES-BES or CAdES-BES, and mTLS certificate configuration must be in place. It implies this is the actual submission step versus validation or signing tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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