parse_fa2_invoice

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

The description reveals the return structure but lacks details on error handling, input validation, or side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden; it minimally covers the core behavior.

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 consists of two concise sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and output structure without any wasted words.

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 that an output schema exists, the description adequately lists the top-level keys. However, it omits important context such as error behavior or input validity expectations, leaving minor gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the sole parameter 'xml_content'. However, it only implies the parameter's role via context, adding no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the parameter name.

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 action ('Parse') and the resource ('KSeF FA(2) XML invoice'), and specifies the output format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate, validate, or submit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_fa2_invoice' or 'generate_fa2_invoice'. The description does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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