parse_cii_invoice

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that only the EN 16931 core field set is extracted, and Italian national fields are returned with defaults. It also specifies the two possible return values (success dict or error dict). This provides sufficient transparency for an XML parser tool, though it could mention that the tool is read-only and has no side effects.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds distinct information: parsing action, field scope and defaults, and use cases plus output format. There is no redundant or extraneous content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (single parameter, known output schema), the description covers the input, output format, and error handling. It also provides context about the standard (EN 16931) and Italian defaults. The mention of specific invoice formats (Factur-X/ZUGFeRD) and round-trip verification adds completeness. However, it could briefly note any limitations, such as silent ignoring of national extensions, already mentioned in schema.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'xml_string', with a description that already explains its purpose and behavior. The tool description does not add significant new semantic information beyond what the schema provides; it merely restates the parameter's role. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action: 'Parse a CII CrossIndustryInvoice XML string into an EN 16931 structured dict.' It specifies the resource (CII XML) and the output format (structured dict). The verb 'parse' and resource are unambiguous, and the mention of CII distinguishes it from sibling tools like parse_ubl_invoice or parse_fattura_xml.

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 provides two use cases: 'inspect Factur-X / ZUGFeRD invoices' and 'round-trip the output of generate_cii_invoice() for verification.' This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives for other formats, which would elevate it to a 5.

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