generate_fa3_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates an XML string and is non-destructive. It explains constraints on tax IDs but does not mention error handling or performance. Still adequately transparent for a generator.

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 concise: five sentences covering purpose, compliance, usage, parameter hints, and output. Every sentence is essential, no redundancy, and front-loaded.

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 complexity of invoice generation and the presence of an output schema (mentioned in context), the description provides sufficient context. It tells what output to expect (XML string) and key constraints, making it self-contained for a competent agent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that seller's tax_id must be Polish NIP and buyer's tax_id optional with alt_tax_id for EU VAT. This clarifies usage beyond 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: generate a KSeF-compliant FA(3) XML invoice. It specifies the format (FA(3)) and distinguishes it from generate_fa2_invoice, making the tool's role 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?

Explicitly directs to use this tool for FA(3) and not generate_fa2_invoice, and to call it before submit_invoice_to_ksef. Also provides specific conditions for tax_id fields (seller must be Polish NIP, buyer variants).

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