submit_invoice_to_ksef

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the required KSeF API v2 and FA(3) format, and provides an auth link, but does not disclose error behavior, idempotency, or prerequisites beyond the schema.

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 four sentences, each providing distinct information. It is concise and front-loaded with the main action, though the roadmap reference could be considered extraneous.

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 (external API, auth, specific format), the description covers format and provides an auth link, but lacks explanation of output (though output schema exists), required vs optional parameters, and error handling.

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 50% (session_token has a link, xml_content is empty). The description adds that xml_content must be FA(3) XML, but no format details for session_token. This adds some value beyond the schema but is not comprehensive.

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 verb 'submit' and the resource 'FA(3) XML invoice to the KSeF platform (API v2)', immediately distinguishing the tool's function from its siblings.

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 advises against using generate_fa2_invoice for submission and notes that FA(3) generation is tracked elsewhere. However, it does not contrast with other siblings like generate_fa3_invoice or get_ksef_invoice_status.

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