generate_fa2_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions generation of XML and a constraint on seller's tax_id, but does not address idempotency, error handling, side effects, or performance characteristics, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences frontload the core purpose and the key constraint. No unnecessary words, and every sentence adds value. Perfectly concise.

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 complex nested input and presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains the output format and a critical constraint, but lacks guidance on validation behavior, error scenarios, or usage examples. It meets the minimum threshold for a generation tool with rich 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% description coverage, so the schema itself is rich. The description adds crucial extra meaning: the seller's tax_id must be a Polish NIP (10 digits), which constrains the otherwise generic tax_id schema. It also clarifies the return type (FA(2) XML string) beyond what the schema shows.

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 generates a KSeF-compliant FA(2) XML invoice from structured data, specifying the exact output format and compliance target, which distinguishes it from siblings like generate_fa3_invoice or generate_peppol_invoice.

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 implies usage for KSeF submission but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling names provide context, but the description itself lacks clear usage boundaries.

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