submit_invoice_to_ksef

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API version and format requirement but fails to disclose essential traits such as whether the operation is destructive, authentication needs beyond the session token hint, or error handling behavior. The description is minimal for a submission tool.

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 with three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second warns about format compatibility, and the third references roadmap tracking. It is efficient but could benefit from structured formatting, such as bullet points for key constraints.

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 complexity (external API submission, output schema present, multiple siblings), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about the response, error scenarios, authentication flow details, and examples. The output schema exists but is not described. The description adequately covers the format requirement but misses other crucial context.

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 50% with only session_token having a description. The xml_content parameter has an empty description, and the tool description does not add details about its format or structure. The session_token description references an external URL for obtaining it, which adds some value, but the critical xml_content parameter is left undocumented.

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 submits FA(3) XML invoices to the KSeF platform API v2. It distinguishes the tool from the sibling generate_fa2_invoice by noting that FA(2) is not accepted, providing specific verb and resource scope.

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 using generate_fa2_invoice only for validation or parsing, as it produces FA(2) XML incompatible with KSeF v2. This provides clear when-to-use guidance relative to a sibling. However, it does not mention prerequisites like authentication or when not to use this tool versus other siblings such as generate_fa3_invoice.

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